The Madras High Court has made absolute the ad interim injunction restraining Annapurna Swadisht Limited from using the mark ‘ANNAPURNA’ for packaged snacks, namkeens, pellets and savouries, on the suit filed by GEF Foods India Private Limited, the registered proprietor of ‘ANNAPOORNA’ in Classes 29 and 30. The Court held that phonetic similarity between ‘ANNAPOORNA’ and ‘ANNAPURNA’, when used for cooking ingredients and packaged snacks respectively, was sufficient to establish a likelihood of confusion under Section 29(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The word ‘SWADISHT’, meaning ‘tasty’, was held to describe the goods and not distinguish their source.
While the Court disapproved the plaintiff’s inaccurate plea that it learnt of the defendant’s mark only in March 2026, when its predecessor had opposed the defendant’s applications from February 2023, complete vacation of the injunction was refused because the opposition proceedings were disclosed in the plaint and the inaccuracy did not displace the plaintiff’s prima facie registered rights. The restraint on ‘any goods’ was modified to confine it to the goods and allied goods for which confusion was established.
The Court further held that the defendant’s status as a listed company, its turnover exceeding Rs.400 crores, and its offer to disclose corporate identity on packaging did not outweigh the injury to the plaintiff’s goodwill. Acquiescence and delay were rejected, as opposition proceedings constituted an assertion of rights.
Briefly, the plaintiff, GEF Foods India Private Limited, filed a suit against the defendant, Annapurna Swadisht Limited, for infringement of its registered trademark ‘ANNAPOORNA’ and for passing off. The defendant was using the marks ‘ANNAPURNA’, ‘ANNAPURNA SWADISHT’ and ‘ANNAPURNA SNACKS’. The plaintiff’s case was that its predecessor, ‘Sree Annapoorna Foods’, began making spice powders and allied food products under the mark ‘Sree Annapoorna’ around 1980 in Coimbatore, was renamed on Nov 24, 1984, and obtained trademark registrations in Class 30 (applied for on Feb 06, 2001) and Class 29 (applied for on April 06, 2009), along with a copyright registration for its label.
By an Agreement and an IP Assignment Deed, both dated Jan 31, 2025, the predecessor transferred its business, trademarks, trade name and goodwill to the plaintiff, which applied to the Trade Marks Registry on March 24, 2025, to bring the registrations into its name. The plaintiff claimed sales of about Rs. 41.41 crores for 2023-2024 and submitted that the mark had acquired substantial goodwill over four decades. The plaintiff stated that it learnt of the defendant’s use only in or about March 2026, sent a cease-and-desist notice on March 23, 2026, and filed the suit in July 2026, claiming urgency to bypass pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
The defendant’s case was that a partnership firm, M/s. Annapurna Agro Industries, was formed at Kolkata on Nov 27, 2015, with a factory in Burdwan District, West Bengal, and began making papads, fryums and allied products under the name ANNAPURNA. The partners incorporated Annapurna Swadisht Private Limited on Feb 11, 2022, and, by a Deed of Assignment of the same date, transferred the firm’s business, assets and goodwill to the company. The company was converted into a public limited company on July 08, 2022, and its shares were listed on the National Stock Exchange on Sep 27, 2022. The defendant made packaged snacks, namkeens, pellets, corn tortilla chips, puffed corn, corn curls, cheese puffs, dried dumplings (bori) and savouries under sub-brands such as ‘Chatpata’, ‘Rambo’ and ‘Badam Pakora’, and did not make or sell raw spices, spice powders or blended masalas. Its turnover was stated as Rs.160.17 crores in 2022-2023, Rs.264.43 crores in 2023-2024, Rs.374.10 crores in 2024-2025 and about Rs.414.92 crores in 2025-2026.
The defendant contended that the plaintiff’s predecessor had opposed its trademark applications from February 2023, that this was recorded in Annexure D to the plaintiff’s own Assignment Deed, and that the plaintiff’s claim of learning of the defendant only in March 2026 was therefore untrue and made to create false urgency. The defendant offered to undertake not to make or sell raw spices or blended masala powders under the name ANNAPURNA, and to disclose its corporate identity and place of manufacture on its snack packets. On Aug 05, 2026, the Court heard the plaintiff and granted an ad interim injunction in both applications because the plaintiff held registrations in Class 30 and the defendant had adopted a mark which sounded similar and was likely to confuse buyers.
A Single Judge Bench of Dr. Justice A.D. Maria Clete noted several material discrepancies. The plaintiff pleaded that it came to know of the defendant’s mark only in or about March 2026, but the plaintiff’s predecessor had opposed the defendant’s trademark applications as early as February 2023, and those oppositions were recorded in the Assignment Deed dated Jan 31, 2025, through which the plaintiff claimed title. The Court also noted a discrepancy regarding the plaintiff’s year of incorporation, with the plaint referring to incorporation in 2008 when the certificate showed Dec 23, 2024.
The Court further observed that the invoices bore the name ‘Annapurna Swadisht Limited’, although the defendant was converted into a public limited company under that name only on July 08, 2022, raising doubts about the genuineness of those invoices. The Court accepted that the rival marks may differ visually but were phonetically similar, as fairly conceded by the defendant’s Senior Counsel. The Court observed that the word ‘SWADISHT’ simply meant ‘tasty’, described the goods and did not distinguish their source, so the offer to confine use to ‘Annapurna Swadisht’ did not remove the confusion.
The Court noted that the defendant’s business began with papads and fryums, while the plaintiff’s registrations covered appalams and wafers, and that papads and appalams, fryums and vadams were practically the same goods. The Court observed that ANNAPURNA was used by the defendant as its house mark across its entire range, and that if the same house mark, barred on papads and fryums, were allowed to continue on the other snacks of the same maker, sold in the same shops to the same buyers, the association with a single source would carry on undiminished.
The Court noted that the absence of proof of actual confusion did not alter the position, because Section 29(2) required only a likelihood of confusion or association, and an interim injunction was granted precisely so that actual confusion did not occur. The Court also noted that the religious significance of the name ‘Annapurna’ did not, by itself, render its use as a trademark incapable of protection, and that the geographical separation between the parties’ markets did not, by itself, constitute a defence to an action for infringement.
The Court observed that the opposition proceedings initiated against the defendant’s trademark applications constituted an assertion of rights rather than consent to its use, and that the defendant’s public issue, listing and brand-building all took place after its applications had been opposed, that is, with full notice of the challenge to its mark. The Court disapproved of the inaccurate statement on knowledge and of the reference in the plaint to incorporation in 2008 when the certificate showed Dec 23, 2024, observing that a party seeking an order without notice to the other side must state the facts accurately and fairly.
