Case Name: Sangeetha Caterers and Consultants LLP v. Rasnam Foods Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number: C.S. (Comm. Div.) No. 116 of 2023
Court: Madras High Court
Coram: Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
Abstract
Just changing the name of a business will not be enough if the total look, including the branding and presentation, still suggests an association with an existing brand.
Introduction
Only the name has changed; imagine you have owned a restaurant for years, and people recognise you, and you have expanded your business, and opened franchises in various cities. From one of those cities, you want to close the franchise. So you terminated the franchise contract and closed the restaurant in that city. Then, after 2 years, the same person who was handling the franchise opened his restaurant at the same place, with the same cuisine, same interiors, and a different name. Still, with the same colour palette and advertising the restaurant with the tag line “only the name has changed”. So, what remedy exactly can you get? That’s exactly what we are going to see in this case of Sangeetha Caterers and Consultants LLP v. Rasnam Foods Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Facts
Sangeetha Caterers and Consultants LLP, the plaintiff, has operated hotels under the mark Sangeetha for years, holding proprietary rights over about 20 registered trademarks in several classes and countries. Rasnam Foods Pvt Ltd, the defendant, was initially a franchisee permitted to operate vegetarian restaurants under the plaintiff’s marks pursuant to a franchise agreement starting in 2009.
The franchise arrangement grew over time agreements were entered into in 2009, 2011, 2013, 2014, and 2018. The defendants operated multiple “Sangeetha” outlets across Chennai, Velachery, T. Nagar, Thoraipakkam, and other locations. In 2022, both of the parties mutually decided to terminate the franchise contract. And on the 31st of May 2022, the contract was officially terminated. Franchise terms explicitly barred ex-franchisees from using Sangeetha’s marks or anything deceptively similar, acknowledging the brand’s validity and goodwill.
What happened next led to the argument. The very next day after the termination of the franchise agreement the defendants opened restaurants under the name “Geetham” at the same locations with a similar colour scheme, décor and the tagline “Only the name has changed”. The plaintiff filed C.S. (Comm. Div.) No. 116 of 2023 before the Madras High Court for violation of trademark and passing off. In 2023, an interim injunction was
granted which was later modified by the Division Bench allowing the defendants to operate subject to change in the logo and publication of disclaimers. The Court rendered its final judgment on March 25, 2026.
Core question
Is there any trademark infringement?
Judgment
The court held that the defendant had not infringed the trademark as the words Sangeetha and Geetham are two very different names with different meanings, so it’s not the traditional trademark infringement. The court denied the plaintiffs’ request for a permanent injunction. However, the court held that defendants retained the identical colour scheme, layout, décor, and even advertised “only the name has changed”; the overall commercial impression was that of Sangeetha’s restaurants. So they ordered the defendant to change all this for the future. The key difference which helped the plaintiffs is the concept of trade dress
What is trade dress
The Trade Marks Act, 1999 does not clearly define trade dress.. It is protected under the broad definition of a trademark in Section 2.
Trade dress is how a product or business looks. This includes its shape, packaging, colours, layout and presentation. These features make it different from others in the market.
In India trade dress is mainly protected by a law remedy called passing off. Courts say that things like product shape, packaging, colour schemes and overall look can become unique. They can be linked to a source.
Trade dress protection has a rule called functionality. This is, in Section 9(3) of the Trade Marks Act. It stops the registration of features that’re functional. These are features that come from the type of goods or add value to them.
Like trademarks, trade dress must be unique. It must be able to identify where goods or services come from.
Indian courts consider trade dress important for intellectual property protection. They have given relief when a product’s or business’s overall look is copied. This can confuse consumers.
Critical assessment
The judgment is important as it demarcates between trademark infringement and passing off. The court rightly held that “Sangeetha” and “Geetham” are different marks and therefore there is no trademark infringement. But it also acknowledged that consumers identify a business by its overall appearance, just its name. The defendants maintained the same colour scheme, décor, layout and used the tagline “Only the name has changed” giving the impression of continuity with the plaintiff’s restaurants. By concentrating on the overall commercial impression, the court thus safeguarded the plaintiff’s goodwill and prevented consumer confusion. The decision highlights the increasing importance of trade dress protection in India and clarifies that merely changing the name of a business is not enough if the overall identity of business continues to mislead consumers.
Conclusion
The case underscores that trademark protection is not solely based on the registered name but also on the overall commercial identity of the business. The court did not find any infringement of the trademark between “Sangeetha” and “Geetham”, but observed the defendants’ attempt to capitalize on the goodwill of the plaintiff by adopting a similar trade dress. The judgment reiterates the need to prevent consumer confusion and is a landmark judgment on trade dress protection and passing off in India.
References
Sangeetha Caterers and Consultants LLP v. M/s Rasnam Foods Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., Supreme(Online)(Mad) 2026 25189(Mad. H.C. 2026), https://indiankanoon.org/doc/5016996/.
Sangeetha Caterers and Consultants LLP v. Rasnam Foods Pvt. Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine Mad 6259 (Mad. H.C. 2023), https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/6a19ae4798af093b66d348d3.
IBC Law, Sangeetha Caterers and Consultants LLP v. Rasnam Foods Pvt. Ltd., https://ibclaw.in/sangeetha-caterers-and-consultants-llp-vs-rasnam-foods-pvt-ltd and-ors-madras-high-court/ (last visited June 18, 2026).
LKS Law, Close Enough to Misrepresent but Not Enough to Infringe, https://www.lkslaw.com/insights/articles/close-enough-to-misrepresent-but-not enough-to-infringe (last visited June 18, 2026).
Trade Marks Act, No. 47 of 1999 (India), https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/15427/1/the_trade_marks_act%2 C_1999.pdf.
IIPRD, Concept of Trade Dress in India, https://www.iiprd.com/concept-of-trade dress-in-india/ (last visited June 18, 2026).
Sangeetha Caterers and Consultants LLP v. Rasnam Foods Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Karishma Lokwani
DM Harish School of Law
Case Name: Sangeetha Caterers and Consultants LLP v. Rasnam Foods Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number: C.S. (Comm. Div.) No. 116 of 2023
Court: Madras High Court
Coram: Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
Abstract
Just changing the name of a business will not be enough if the total look, including the branding and presentation, still suggests an association with an existing brand.
Introduction
Only the name has changed; imagine you have owned a restaurant for years, and people recognise you, and you have expanded your business, and opened franchises in various cities. From one of those cities, you want to close the franchise. So you terminated the franchise contract and closed the restaurant in that city. Then, after 2 years, the same person who was handling the franchise opened his restaurant at the same place, with the same cuisine, same interiors, and a different name. Still, with the same colour palette and advertising the restaurant with the tag line “only the name has changed”. So, what remedy exactly can you get? That’s exactly what we are going to see in this case of Sangeetha Caterers and Consultants LLP v. Rasnam Foods Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Facts
Sangeetha Caterers and Consultants LLP, the plaintiff, has operated hotels under the mark Sangeetha for years, holding proprietary rights over about 20 registered trademarks in several classes and countries. Rasnam Foods Pvt Ltd, the defendant, was initially a franchisee permitted to operate vegetarian restaurants under the plaintiff’s marks pursuant to a franchise agreement starting in 2009.
The franchise arrangement grew over time agreements were entered into in 2009, 2011, 2013, 2014, and 2018. The defendants operated multiple “Sangeetha” outlets across Chennai, Velachery, T. Nagar, Thoraipakkam, and other locations. In 2022, both of the parties mutually decided to terminate the franchise contract. And on the 31st of May 2022, the contract was officially terminated. Franchise terms explicitly barred ex-franchisees from using Sangeetha’s marks or anything deceptively similar, acknowledging the brand’s validity and goodwill.
What happened next led to the argument. The very next day after the termination of the franchise agreement the defendants opened restaurants under the name “Geetham” at the same locations with a similar colour scheme, décor and the tagline “Only the name has changed”. The plaintiff filed C.S. (Comm. Div.) No. 116 of 2023 before the Madras High Court for violation of trademark and passing off. In 2023, an interim injunction was
granted which was later modified by the Division Bench allowing the defendants to operate subject to change in the logo and publication of disclaimers. The Court rendered its final judgment on March 25, 2026.
Core question
Is there any trademark infringement?
Judgment
The court held that the defendant had not infringed the trademark as the words Sangeetha and Geetham are two very different names with different meanings, so it’s not the traditional trademark infringement. The court denied the plaintiffs’ request for a permanent injunction. However, the court held that defendants retained the identical colour scheme, layout, décor, and even advertised “only the name has changed”; the overall commercial impression was that of Sangeetha’s restaurants. So they ordered the defendant to change all this for the future. The key difference which helped the plaintiffs is the concept of trade dress
What is trade dress
The Trade Marks Act, 1999 does not clearly define trade dress.. It is protected under the broad definition of a trademark in Section 2.
Trade dress is how a product or business looks. This includes its shape, packaging, colours, layout and presentation. These features make it different from others in the market.
In India trade dress is mainly protected by a law remedy called passing off. Courts say that things like product shape, packaging, colour schemes and overall look can become unique. They can be linked to a source.
Trade dress protection has a rule called functionality. This is, in Section 9(3) of the Trade Marks Act. It stops the registration of features that’re functional. These are features that come from the type of goods or add value to them.
Like trademarks, trade dress must be unique. It must be able to identify where goods or services come from.
Indian courts consider trade dress important for intellectual property protection. They have given relief when a product’s or business’s overall look is copied. This can confuse consumers.
Critical assessment
The judgment is important as it demarcates between trademark infringement and passing off. The court rightly held that “Sangeetha” and “Geetham” are different marks and therefore there is no trademark infringement. But it also acknowledged that consumers identify a business by its overall appearance, just its name. The defendants maintained the same colour scheme, décor, layout and used the tagline “Only the name has changed” giving the impression of continuity with the plaintiff’s restaurants. By concentrating on the overall commercial impression, the court thus safeguarded the plaintiff’s goodwill and prevented consumer confusion. The decision highlights the increasing importance of trade dress protection in India and clarifies that merely changing the name of a business is not enough if the overall identity of business continues to mislead consumers.
Conclusion
The case underscores that trademark protection is not solely based on the registered name but also on the overall commercial identity of the business. The court did not find any infringement of the trademark between “Sangeetha” and “Geetham”, but observed the defendants’ attempt to capitalize on the goodwill of the plaintiff by adopting a similar trade dress. The judgment reiterates the need to prevent consumer confusion and is a landmark judgment on trade dress protection and passing off in India.
References
Sangeetha Caterers and Consultants LLP v. M/s Rasnam Foods Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., Supreme(Online)(Mad) 2026 25189(Mad. H.C. 2026), https://indiankanoon.org/doc/5016996/.
Sangeetha Caterers and Consultants LLP v. Rasnam Foods Pvt. Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine Mad 6259 (Mad. H.C. 2023), https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/6a19ae4798af093b66d348d3.
IBC Law, Sangeetha Caterers and Consultants LLP v. Rasnam Foods Pvt. Ltd., https://ibclaw.in/sangeetha-caterers-and-consultants-llp-vs-rasnam-foods-pvt-ltd and-ors-madras-high-court/ (last visited June 18, 2026).
LKS Law, Close Enough to Misrepresent but Not Enough to Infringe, https://www.lkslaw.com/insights/articles/close-enough-to-misrepresent-but-not enough-to-infringe (last visited June 18, 2026).
Trade Marks Act, No. 47 of 1999 (India), https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/15427/1/the_trade_marks_act%2 C_1999.pdf.
IIPRD, Concept of Trade Dress in India, https://www.iiprd.com/concept-of-trade dress-in-india/ (last visited June 18, 2026).
Share Us On Socials
Other Recent Blog Posts
THE POTATO PATENT BATTLE
CASE NAME: PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Kavitha Kuruganti CITATION: C.A. (COMM.IPD-PV) 2/2022 & IAs 7898/2022 & 7900/2022, decided on 5 July 2023 COURT:
OWNING YOUR DIGITAL DOPPELGANGER
ABSTRACT Who owns your digital twin, and who protects it? Imagine a doppelganger of yourself or your machine, not in flesh and blood but in
FROM PITCH TO PIRACY
PROTECTING CREATIVE EXPRESSION CASE NAME: Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Sundial Communications Pvt. Ltd. CITATION: 2003 (5) BOM CR 404; 2003 (3) MHLJ 695; 2003 (27)
PROTECTING THE BLUEPRINT
SILICON’S SILENT BATTLE ABSTRACT What happens when the invisible blueprint of our digital age the chip layout becomes the target of piracy? Who owns the
BOTTLE BATTLES
TRADE DRESS AND SHAPE MARKS IN VODKA BRANDING CASE NAME: Gorbatschow Wodka KG v. John Distilleries Ltd. CITATION: 2011 (47) PTC 100 (Bom); Notice of
FROM LAUGHTER TO LAWSUITS
THE COPYRIGHT STORY BEHIND MEMES Abstract People everywhere laugh at their phones not because of the device, but because someone has cleverly mocked a scenario