C.S(COMM DIV)/180/2024 of M/s Sangeetha Caterers And Consultants Llp Vs M/s Grand Sangeetha Pure Veg on 4 November 2026

JUDGMENT

The present suit had been filed interalia seeking a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, their legal representatives, their successors in business, assigns, franchisees, servants or agents (i) from operating the restaurant business by infringing the plaintiffs registered trademarks "SVR SANGEETHA", "SVR SANGEETHA VEG. RESTAURANT", "SANGEETHA (with a VEENA MARK)", "SANGEETHA VEG. RESTAURANT WITH VEENA MARK" "Sangeetha Veg express (with a Veena Mark)" and "SVR Sangeetha EXPRESS" or by use of confusingly similar or any other mark deceptively and identically similar to the Plaintiff's registered trademark and (ii) from operating restaurant business by the name "GRAND SANGEETHA PURE VEG" or any other similar marks to that of the plaintiff's registered trademark from committing the act of passing off and enabling others in passing off the restaurant business in the deceptively similar mark which is identical to the plaintiff's registered trademark in any manner along with such other reliefs that are as prayed for in the prayer

2. The facts giving rise to the present case is that the plaintiff is a Limited Liability Partnership Firm which was floated in the year and was registered with the Registrar of Companies vide Conversion Certificate bearing LLP AAD- 7003 dated 01.04.2015. It is stated that the partnership firm was formed in the year 2001, the trademarks were held by the two partners individually. The plaintiff’s firm was reconstituted on 01.04.2017 and a subsequent amendment to the profit sharing ratio was executed by the means of the Amendment to the partnership vide Deed dated 01.04.2021 and thereafter the plaintiff firm had inducted two more partners into the plaintiff’s firm vide the Reconstituted Partnership Deed dated 01.04.2022. All the Trademarks which stood in the name of the partnership firm were registered under the name of the plaintiff vide submission of Form-24 dated 19.02.2016 before the Registrar of Trademarks on 22.02.2016, pursuant to which the said application was allowed vide communication dated 17.03.2018 issued by the Trade Marks Registry, thereby recording the change in ownership in respect of six trademarks, namely, SVR Sangeetha, Sangeetha Veg. Restaurant SVR, Sangeetha (Device of Veena), Sangeetha Veg Restaurant (Device of Veena), Sangeetha VEG

express and SVR Sangeetha EXPRESS under class 42 and 43 accordingly, as stated therein.

3. Further it is averred that the plaintiff in order to safeguard its artistic work in “SVR Sangeetha” and “Sangeetha (with Veena Device)”, the same were registered under the Copyrights Act in the name of the designated partners of the firm. In turn the designated partners of the Plaintiff firm had executed two separate Assignment Deeds dated 01.01.2023, assigning the Proprietorship of the copyrights of the aforesaid mark infavour of the plaintiff firm. Thereafter the plaintiff firm continued using the aforesaid trademarks in their business and had earned a impeccable reputation among the consumers. The plaintiff firm was engaged in the business of running restaurants and hotels for about four decades in both India and abroad. Subsequently the plaintiff was made aware by one of its customers of the existence of the defendant’s restaurant, wherein the defendant had named its restaurant as “GRAND SANGEETHA PURE VEG”, which is very much similar to that of the plaintiff’s registered trademark “SANGEETHA VEG. RESTAURANT (with Veena mark)”. The defendant had copied the plaintiff’s registered trademark by adding word “GRAND” in front of the word “Sangeetha” as a prefix, thereby creating confusion in the minds of the consumers. It is averred that the defendant infringed the Plaintiff’s registered trademark with the intention of passing off its goods as those of the Plaintiff and unlawfully exploiting the Plaintiff’s goodwill and reputation for its own gain. Therefore upon the knowledge of the said infringement, the plaintiff had issued legal notice dated 02.07.2024 to the defendant seeking cease and desist the use of the registered trademark of the plaintiff and the defendant had acknowledged the said notice on 04.07.2024. However the defendant had not issued any reply to the said notice and continued with its infringement. Therefore the plaintiff had instituted the present suit interalia seeking the permanent injunction restraining the defendant from infringing the plaintiff’s registered trademark along with other reliefs.

4. Its had been submitted that the defendant had both e-filed and physically filed the written statement before the registry. As a consequence thereof, this Court, vide its order dated 10.03.2025, directed the Registry to verify whether the written statement had been filed within 120 days and, if so, to receive the same, subject to the same being accompanied with application for condonation of delay. The Registry made an endorsement that the written statement had been presented within 120 days. Nevertheless, the Defendant was required to file an application seeking condonation of the delay in filing the written statement. Thereafter, on several occasions, the Defendant sought time for filing the said application. Despite repeated opportunities being granted, the Defendant failed to file the application for condonation of delay. The written statement was also returned by the Registry on 17.03.2025 for rectification of the defects. Thereafter, when the matter was taken up for hearing on 23.03.2026

the Defendant continued to remain unrepresented. Consequently, the Defendant was set ex-parte by this court vide its order dated 23.03.2026.

5. Heard Mr.L.Rajasekar learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff

6. The plaintiff had examined himself as PW1 as plaintiff side witness and had marked 40 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P40 as the evidence.

7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff would submit that the plaintiff’s firm was originally commenced as a partnership firm vide document dated 22.11.2001 marked as Ex.P1 and the plaintiff’s firm was converted into a Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) Firm vide Limited Liability Partnership Deed dated 01.04.2015 marked as Ex.P4. It is submitted that the trademarks standing in the names of the individual partners were brought within the fold of the Plaintiff Firm by filing Form-24 before the Trade Marks Registry, pursuant to which the Trade Marks Registry, by order dated 17.03.2018, marked as Ex.P7, recorded the change in ownership of the said trademarks in favour of the Plaintiff Firm. The learned counsel submits that subsequently six trademarks have been registered under the plaintiff’s firm which can be substantiated vide the trademark certificates marked as Ex.P8 to Ex.P13. It is submitted that the defendant had had infringed the plaintiff’s

registered trademark by naming its restaurant as “GRAND SANGEETHA PURE VEG” by merely adding the prefix ‘Grand’ in front of the word ‘Sangeetha’ with an intention of infringing the plaintiff’s already existing trademark “SANGEETHA VEG. RESTAURANT (with Veena mark)”. The learned counsel submits that the said act of the defendant clearly amounts to the infringement of the plaintiff’s trademark as both the trademarks are deceptively similar. He further submits that the impugned trademark of the defendant had been used by him in all the bills, name board, brochures and menu cards are deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff’s registered trademark.

8. The learned counsel also submits that the defendant had not only infringed the plaintiff’s registered trademark but had also violated the copy right by using the same font in both English and Vernacular language. He submits that the impugned trademark of the defendant had also been used in its logo “Hotel Grand Sangeetha Restaurant”, wherein the word SANGEETHA alone had been written in a bold and bigger size in a cursive font, which is again similar to that of the plaintiff, whereas the other words like ‘hotel’, ‘grand’ and ‘Restaurant’ are all in smaller fonts just to create confusion in the minds of the consumer. The learned counsel further submits that defendant had further registered their business within the GST Portal having GSTIN bearing No.33ALQPP0717Q1ZJ wherein the defendant had named its restaurant as “GRAND SANGEETHA” and have also obtained FSSAI license.

9. That apart, the learned counsel submits that the Defendant had made its restaurant available on the Swiggy portal under the impugned trademark, which is deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s registered trademark. Therefore, the learned counsel contends that the Defendant had adopted and used the impugned trademark with a malafide intention to create confusion and deception in the minds of consumers and to pass off its products as those of the Plaintiff. Hence, in addition to the other reliefs sought in the suit, the Plaintiff has also claimed damages of Rs.10,00,000/- from the Defendant for the wrongful and unlawful use of the Plaintiff’s registered trademark. In support of the aforesaid contentions, the learned counsel placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court made in the case of Renaissance Hotel Holding INC Vs B.Vijaya Sai and others. In view of the foregoing, the learned counsel prays that this Court may be pleased to decree the suit as prayed for.

10. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff and perused the materials available on record before this Court.

11. The instant suit had been laid complaining infringement of a registered Trade Mark and copy right of the plaintiff by the sole defendant whereunder prayers for injunction restraining the defendant from infringing the registered Trade Mark, passing off, surrender for destruction of all the packing containers etc., in possession of the defendant, rendition of accounts and payment of damages to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- had been sought for.

12. The defendant even though, earlier entered appearance through a counsel had failed to file his written statement within the time prescribed and thereafter had remained ex-parte and was also set ex-parte on 23.03.2026.

13. The plaintiff had examined one of the partners as PW1 and he has filed various documents to substantiate his claim in the suit. By placing Exs.P2 and P8 to P13 & P15 to P32, the plaintiff had substantiated that it is the owner of the registered Trade Mark and had been exploiting the said Trade Mark. By placing oral and documentary evidences under Exs.P32 to P37, the plaintiff had also substantiated that the defendant had been infringing its registered Trade Mark by using a phonetically and visually similar Trade name however, with the prefix of the word “GRAND”. Further it is also substantiated the issuance of a cease and desist notice calling upon the defendant to desist from using the Trade Mark and the defendant had not replied to the same.

14. From the perusal of the aforesaid documents which has been exhibited and referred to above it is clearly substantiated that the plaintiff owned the registered Trade Mark which had been infringed by the defendant. In that regard, this Court do not have any hesitation to decree the suit as prayed for.

15. Accordingly, the suit stands decreed as prayed for. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 04-11-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No GBA Plaintiff's witness: P.W.1 – Mr. P.Suresh Documents exhibited by the petitioner: Exhibits Documents Ex.P1 The partnership deed of the plaintiff, dated 22.11.2001 Ex.P2 The copyright certificate for SVR Sangeetha of the plaintiff, dated 04.09.2002. Ex.P3 The copyright certificate for Sangeetha with Veena mark of the plaintiff, dated 16.01.2004 Ex.P4 The limited liability partnership agreement of the plaintiff, dated 01.04.2015. Ex.P5 is the certificate of conversion of plaintiff, dated 01.04.2015 Ex.P6 The reconstituted limited liability partnership agreement of plaintiff, dated 01.04.2017. Ex.P7 The communication confirming order passed in Form 24 of plaintiff, dated 17.03.2018. Ex.P8 The legal use certificate for TM No.1441849, dated 23.10.2018. Ex.P9 The legal use certificate for TM No.1441854, dated 23.10.2018. Ex.P10 The legal use certificate for TM No.1464536, dated 23.10.2018. Ex.P11 The legal use certificate for TM No.1464537, dated 23.10.2018. Ex.P12 The legal use certificate for TM No.4877037, dated 16.11.2023 Ex.P13 The legal use certificate for TM No.4877039, dated 16.11.2023 Ex.P14 The limited liability partnership deed, dated 01.04.2022. Ex.P15 The statement advertising expenses for 37th anniversary as on 31.03.2023 along with copy of invoices. Ex.P16 The statement of accounts for the social media payment for the year 2022-2023 along with copy of the invoices. Ex.P17 The statement of turnover of the Franchised outlets for the year ending 31.03.2023. Ex.P18 The statement accounts for the sales turnover for the overseas franchised outlets for the year ending 31.03.2023. Ex.P19 The statement of accounts for the sales turnover for the Management outlets for the year ending 31.03.2023. Ex.P20 The photographs of the Adyar Branch of the plaintiff's restaurant. Ex.P21 The photographs of the Egmore Branch of the plaintiff's restaurant Ex.P22 The photographs of the Parrys Branch of the plaintiff's restaurant. Ex.P23 The photographs of the Guindy Branch of the plaintiff's restaurant Ex.P24 The photographs of the Mylapore Branch of the plaintiff's restaurant. Ex.P25 The photographs of the Nandambakkam Branch of the plaintiff's restaurant. Ex.P26 The photographs of the Egmore Railway station Branch of the plaintiff's restaurant. Ex.P27 The photographs of the Nelson Manickam Road Branch of the plaintiff's restaurant. Ex.P28 The photographs of the Nungambakkam Branch of the plaintiff's restaurant.

Ex.P29 The photographs of the Triplicane Branch of the plaintiff's restaurant. Ex.P30 The photographs of the Urapakkam Branch of the plaintiff's restaurant Ex.P31 The photographs of the Thirumazhisai Branch of the plaintiff's restaurant. Ex.P32 The photographs of the defendant restaurant's sign board. Ex.P33 The defendant restaurant's bill along with photostat copy. Ex.P34 The GST Webpage of the defendant's restaurant. Ex.P35 The Swiggy portal of the defendant's restaurant. Ex.P36 The FSSAI webpage of the defendant's restaurant. Ex.P37 The brochures of the defendant Ex.P38 The legal notice issued by the plaintiff Ex.P39 The postal registration receipt. Ex.P40 The postal tracking report. Certificate Part -A and Part – B filed under section 63(4)(C) of Bharatiya Sakshya Aadiniyam, 2023 for Ex.P15 to Ex.P32, Ex.P34 to Ex.P36 and Ex.P40. 04-11-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No GBA

K.KUMARESH BABU, J. GBA Pre-delivery Judgment made in C.S(COMM DIV) No. 180 of 2024 04-11-2026