Thanjavur Hotel’s Tamil Signboard Reproduces “Sangeetha”: Madras HC Temporarily Bars “Sangethas” Restaurant Name

The plaintiff, a restaurant business operating since 1985, claimed ownership of registered marks including “SVR Sangeetha” and “Sangeetha Veg. Restaurant,” and asserted substantial goodwill and business in India and overseas.

It sued the defendant for allegedly infringing its marks by operating a restaurant as “Hotel Sangethas Pure Veg Restaurant” and sought an interim injunction.

The defendant argued, among other things, that the parties’ devices, colours and spellings differed, and that the plaintiff had no outlet in Thanjavur.

The Court considered the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC.

Under the principles governing trademark infringement and interim injunctions, competing marks are assessed for likely confusion or deception, having regard to the marks as a whole and the perspective of an average purchaser with imperfect recollection.

The Court applied the approach in Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2001) 5 SCC 73, and considered Corn Products Refining Co. v. Shangrila Food Products Ltd., AIR 1980 SC 142, and Nandhini Deluxe v. Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Ltd., (2018) 9 SCC 183.

It also relied on Renaissance Hotel Holdings Inc. v. B. Vijaya Sai, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 65, concerning the requirement that use claimed to fall within Section 30 of the Trade Marks Act be honest and not take unfair advantage of, or harm, a mark’s distinctive character or reputation.

Interim relief required satisfaction of the three familiar tests: prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury.

The Court found that the defendant’s English mark differed from “Sangeetha” by omission of one “e,” but its Tamil sign reproduced “Sangeetha” identically.

It considered that similarity particularly significant for local customers and visitors to Thanjavur, and rejected the absence of a plaintiff outlet there as decisive given the plaintiff’s broader presence and the city’s visitor traffic.

The different device, colour scheme and use of “Hotel” did not, in the Court’s view, dispel the likelihood that customers would be drawn to the shared name, especially when choosing a restaurant.

The Court also noted the defendant’s recent adoption and lack of registration, and found the adoption not honest or bona fide.

It concluded that the plaintiff had met the three tests for interim relief; objections concerning complaint particulars and compliance with Order XIX CPC were left for trial.

It allowed the application and granted an interim injunction as prayed, restraining the defendant from infringing the plaintiff’s registered marks and operating as “Hotel Sangethas Pure Veg Restaurant” pending disposal of the suit.

No order as to costs was made.