Trademark Infringement Claims in Restaurant Branding: Practical Lessons
Introduction : A name is not just a label for a restaurant. Over time, it becomes deeply tied to its identity, reputation and goodwill. Because of this a restaurant’s name functions as a foundation of the restaurant’s commercial identity, making it a crucial asset to protect and also a vital factor for customers to decide where to spend their money. However, when two different restaurants use names that sound nearly identical but only spelled differently, it becomes a complex issue. Such a situation raises questions like ‘Can a restaurant escape the claim of trademark infringement because its name is spelled differently or because its logo looks different ?’ In an attempt to answer such questions, the courts are to look into the brand as a whole and how an average consumer of ordinary intelligence looks at it.
This conflict was looked into recently by the Madras High Court in the case of Sangeetha Caterers and Consultants LLP Vs. Rasnam Foods Pvt Ltd and Ors., 2026 MHC 4379 (decided on 30th October, 2026).
Case summary
This case was about a restaurant in Thanjavur under the name “Hotel Sangethas Pure Veg.”.The plaintiff claimed exclusive right over its long-established restaurant mark, “Sangeetha”. The issues framed were:
Whether there was a trademark infringement on the grounds that the mark “Hotel Sangethas Pure Veg” was deceptively similar to “Hotel Sangeetha Veg Restaurant”, a registered trademark.
Whether the Defendant’s mark (‘Sangethas’) creates a likelihood of confusion or deception among the general public despite the differences in the logo and absence of a Plaintiff’s outlet (‘Sangeetha’) in the Thanjavur.
Decision: The Madras High Court granted an interim injunction in favour of the Plaintiff, restraining the Defendant from using the mark ‘Hotel Sangeetha Veg Restaurant’ or any similar name which the suit is pending for the final disposal.
Ratio:
The Court reasoned that the Plaintiff’s marks (‘Sangeetha’, ‘SVR’) were in continuous use since 1985 and all the marks were registered, proving they had built substantial goodwill both within and outside India.
Even though the defendant’s mark omitted the single word ‘e’ [Sangeetha’ v ‘Sangethas’] in English, but had the same transliteration in Tamil, which indicates the adoption of the name as dishonest and deceptive.
In relation to the location, the court reasoned that the location of the Defendant’s restaurant in Thanjavur is such that the customer familiar with the Plaintiff’s well-known brand will easily mistake the Defendant’s restaurant as being associated with that of the Plaintiff’s.
The court also applied the ‘Hungary Customer’ Test according to which a hungry person looking for the restaurant primarily focuses on the brand name and will not look at the minor details like the color variations, spelling tweaks or logo variations.
Legal Provisions:
The Trade Marks Act, 1999
Section 2(1)(h) defines ‘deceptively similar’ as when one mark so nearly resembles that other mark as to be likely to deceive or cause confusion.
Section 2(1)(zb) defines ‘trademark’ as a mark that can be graphically represented and helps in distinguishing one goods/services from the others.
Section 27 provides that an unregistered trademark can sue for infringement. However, this does not affect the right under passing off.
Section - 28 provides for the exclusive rights of the registered proprietor to use the registered trademark, subject to the conditions and limitations under this Act.
Section - 29 provides for when and how a registered trademark is infringed. A registered trademark is said to be infringed including when a trademark is identical with or deceptively similar to the registered trademark or is used in relation to the same goods or services for the original registered mark is used or where it is used in a way that will likely cause confusion for consumers where they will associate it with the registered trademark or when it is phonetically/visually similar to the registered mark.
Section 30 provides for limitations on the exclusive rights of the registered proprietors which is when a mark is adopted in accordance with honest industrial/commercial practises and without taking unfair advantage of or damaging the distinctive character or repute of the registered mark.
Relevant Case Laws
Corn Products Refining Co. v Shangrila Food Products Ltd AIR 1960 SC 142.: The Supreme Court ruled that the marks are to be seen as a whole rather than in isolated parts in order to determine the likelihood of confusion.
Cadila Health Care Ltd. Vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., AIR 2001 SC 1952.: The Supreme Court ruled that the deceptive similarity and likelihood of confusion must be assessed from the perspective of an average consumer of ordinary intelligence, while also taking into account the nature of goods, degree of resemblance, class of purchasers and trade channels.
S. Syed Mohideen Vs. P. Sulochana Bai 2015 (3) CCC 1.: The court ruled that the common law rights of prior use and established goodwill overrides the statutory registration under sections 27(2) and 34 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Nandhini Deluxe v. Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Ltd., AIR 2018 SC 3516.: The Supreme Court ruled that if the visual logos, and overall mark designs are distinctly different then phonetic similarity might not cause confusion.
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha Vs. Prius Auto Industries Ltd. and Ors., AIR 2018 SC 167.: This case is wrt passing of doctrine. The court ruled that to succeed the claim of passing off based on transborder reputation, the international mark owner must prove that its goodwill and reputation had reached local consumers before the defendant began using the mark.
Renaissance Hotel Holdings Inc. Vs. B. Vijaya Sai and Ors., 2022 INSC 70.: The case clarified that a claim for defense under section 30 must require that the adoption was in accordance with honest commercial practises and not intended to take unfair advantage of or to damage the distinctive character or repute of the registered mark.
Legal Analysis
Deceptive Similarity : The central concern of a deceptive similarity question is whether the overall impression of the mark is likely to deceive or cause confusion among the consumers, not solely the comparison of the spelling of the two names. In Cadila Health Care Ltd. Vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., the court laid out the principle that competing marks are to be seen from the perspective of an average customer. The court in Sangeetha’s case adapted this standard in context of the food catering businesses and introduced the Hungry Customer test, that the hunger will lead the customer’s immediate brand recognition to override subtle visual differences in the two competing marks.
To add to this point, there is a difference in the written appearance of a mark and how it is pronounced and understood. In Sangeetha’s case, the absence of one ‘e’ from the English name does not eliminate the probability of confusion, when it is phonetically similar in the regional language. Again, it becomes important to consider the consumer class and their perception.
Therefore, deceptive similarity is to be looked at from the perspective of the average customer as to whether they will associate the two marks together or not, rather than stressing on the point of subtle differences in the logos.
Geographical Reach of Goodwill : One of the arguments made by the defendant was that there was no plaintiff’s restaurant in Thanjavur, therefore, no confusion would arise. However, the court considered the location of the defendant’s restaurant, Thanjavur’s visiting population, as well as the wide reach and presence of the Plaintiff’s brand. This case highlights that absence of a physical outlet should not be confused with absence of goodwill and that these are two different things, as was ruled in the Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha Vs. Prius Auto Industries Ltd. and Ors. The interim order passed by the Madras High Court protects this goodwill of the plaintiff’s brand.
Practical Implications
This case shows why a restaurant should clear its brand name before launch. From this case it becomes clear that solely looking at the identical English name is not enough. The restaurant owners need to also check for phonetically similar names, alternative names, regional-language equivalent names, and also check how their names will be written and spoken in the language of their respective markets. In Sangeetha, the English spelling was changed, but the Tamil signage remained the same.
The checklist should also look up every possible place where names could show up like signboards, menu, packaging, and the online listings such as Google Maps and delivery apps. Local goodwill should also be looked at considering that a local older restaurant may not be in the register search but will hold rights which will prevail of a right conferred by registration (s.27(2)). The owner shall register the whole of the composite mark as well as the separate parts of it (ss. 15, 17). The restaurant brand needs to be properly registered under the right class, that is Class 43 for restaurant services and other packaged food or merchandise. Furthermore, owners must keep invoices, advertisements, other records and proof of customer reach as a matter of evidence for prior use and goodwill.
When a chain and franchise expand, it should look for similar, identical names before entering the market. As well as registered marks should be used consistently across the chain and outlets. The local consumer base must also be looked at and the branding should be done accordingly so as not to cause confusion with previous registered marks.
Conclusion
Restaurant branding is not limited to the written name or the menu. Its pronunciation, regional-language signage, visual presentation and what and how the consumers will perceive it, all shall be taken into account for the brand not to lose itself on the grounds of deceptive similarity. This Madras High Court decision in Sangeetha case, though an interim-injunction decision highlights the importance of being cautious at every stage of a restaurant branding and also taking into other factors of where it is used as well the consumers beside the name of the restaurant. Such a restaurant-name clearance checklist can help founders avoid rebranding cost as well as that of the litigating cost over the name at a later stage.
Author: Renuka Netam in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to content@khuranaandkhurana.com or at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney
Endnotes
Trade Marks Act, 1999, s. 2(1)(h) (India).
Trade Marks Act, 1999, s. 2(1)(zb) (India).
Trade Marks Act, 1999, s. 27 (India).
Trade Marks Act, 1999, s. 28 (India).
Trade Marks Act, 1999, s. 29 (India).
Trade Marks Act, 1999, s. 30 (India).
Sangeetha Caterers and Consultants LLP Vs. Rasnam Foods Pvt Ltd and Ors., 2026 MHC 4379.
Corn Products Refining Co. v Shangrila Food Products Ltd., AIR 1960 SC 142.
Cadila Health Care Ltd. Vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. AIR 2001 SC 1952.
Nandhini Deluxe v. Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Ltd., AIR 2018 SC 3516.
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha Vs. Prius Auto Industries Ltd. and Ors., AIR 2018 SC 167
Renaissance Hotel Holdings Inc. Vs. B. Vijaya Sai and Ors., 2022 INSC 70.
S. Syed Mohideen Vs. P. Sulochana Bai 2015 (3) CCC 1.
Riya Rathore, Madras High Court Restrains Thanjavur Restaurant From Using 'Sangethas' Name, Quotes Avvaiyar, LiveLawBiz (Oct. 31, 2026), https://www.livelawbiz.com/trademark/madras-high-court-restrains-thanjavur-restaurant-from-using-sangethas-name-quotes-avvaiyar-556758.
Comments