Madras High Court Grants Injunction In Favour Of Sangeetha Hotels, Restrains Former Franchisee From Using “Geetham” And Similar Marks

Allowing an application filed by Sangeetha, Justice PT Asha observed that a prima facie case was made out and the balance of convenience was in favour of Sangeetha. The court was also satisfied that there was some suppression on the part of the respondents and some of their actions had created confusion in the mind of the public.

“Therefore, the applicant has made out a prima facie case for grant of an ad interim injunction and the balance of convenience is also in favour of the applicant. Accordingly, the O.A.Nos.447 and 448 of 2023 are allowed,” the court said.

Sangeetha had approached the court contending that the name “Geetham” adopted by the respondents, with whom they formerly had a franchise agreement, was visually, phonetically and aurally similar to the applicant's trademark Sangeetha. It was submitted that the adoption of a similar mark had already caused confusion in the minds of people who though it to Sangeetha’s new name.

Sangeetha had submitted that it entered in to franchise agreement with the respondents in 2009, 2011, 2013, 2014 and in 2018 for running restaurants which was later mutually terminated. It was submitted that these agreements contained a specific clause that after the termination of the franchise agreement, the franchisee/respondents would not operate another unit with reference to the same business for a minimum period of 5 years. However, even before the discussion regarding surrender, the respondents had made applications to register their marks with the name “Geetham” and had later went on to open new outlets with name similar to that of Sangeetha.

On the other hand, the respondents submitted that there was no similarity between the marks. It was also contended that the suit itself was delayed in that the cease and desist notice was issued in January 2023 but the suit was moved only in May 2023.

The court noted that even during the discussions between the parties in 2022, the respondents had agreed that they will not use a trademark similar to the trademark Sangeetha or any of its other variations which are similar or confusingly or deceptively similar to the brand name. However, the court noted that at this time they had already applied for registering their mark without informing the applicants.

Further, though the respondents claimed that Sangeetha had permitted them to set up a new unit, the court noted that the minutes clearly expressed their refusal to grant permission. Looking into the promotional materials sent out by the respondents for their new units, the court was satisfied that there was a probability of the general public being misled into believing that it was another new outlet of Sangeetha.

Further, the court noted that there was no inordinate delay since Sangeetha had approached the court after collating all the evidence.

Thus, finding a prima facie case, the court ordered accordingly.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 295

Case Title: Sangeetha Caterers and Consultants LLP v M/s. Rasnam Foods Pvt Ltd and Others

Case No: CS (Comm Div) 116 of 2023