Court Confirms Injunction Against Use of Identical Medical Charity Name by Corporate Hospital

A single‑judge bench of Dr. Justice A.D. Maria Clete heard an appeal concerning the use of the name "Kovai Heart Foundation". The appeal (A.S.No.101 of 2018) challenged the Principal District Judge, Coimbatore's judgment and decree dated 04.10.2017 in O.S. No.763 of 2009 which had restrained the defendants from using the name "Kovai Heart Foundation".

The court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the trial court's injunction, holding that the plaintiffs had established prior user and goodwill in the name and that the defendants' adoption of "Kovai Heart Foundation Private Limited" in the same field and city constituted passing off. The Court rejected the contention that corporate incorporation or absence of trade mark registration insulated the defendants from a passing off action and emphasised protection of goodwill founded on prior use. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “The absence of trade mark registration is, therefore, not decisive. It is well settled that goodwill generated by prior user is protectable and that an action in passing off is maintainable even in the absence of registration. In N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corporation, (1996) 5 SCC 714, the Supreme Court recognised that the law protects goodwill and reputation founded upon prior use. Likewise, in Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., (2001) 5 SCC 73, the Court explained that the enquiry in such cases is directed to deceptive similarity and the likelihood of confusion. In re Pernod Ricard India Private Limited and another v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra, 2025 INSC 981, the Supreme Court reiterated that the basic purpose of a passing off action is to protect the goodwill earned by prior use and to prevent any misrepresentation that is likely to mislead the public.” The court further noted that "the test is not one of meticulous comparison, but of the impression left on a person of average intelligence and imperfect recollection."

Background
The plaintiffs were a public charitable trust known as Kovai Heart Foundation (first plaintiff) and its trustees (plaintiffs 2 and 3). They alleged that charitable cardiac activities commenced under that name from the early 1990s and that the trust was formally registered on 22.11.1996. The plaintiffs relied on trust records, communications, pamphlets and other materials (Exs.A1–A29) to show prior use and that the name had acquired goodwill and public association in Coimbatore and surrounding areas.

The defendants consisted of Dr. V. Rajendran and M/s Kovai Heart Foundation Private Limited. They contended that the second defendant was a company validly incorporated, that "Kovai" was a geographical expression not exclusively appropriable, that the plaintiffs had no registered trade mark, and that there was no real likelihood of confusion. The trial court accepted the plaintiffs' evidence, found prior user, goodwill and likelihood of confusion, and granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the name.

On appeal the defendants pressed six points: (1) incorporation or lack of trade mark registration barred the suit; (2) the trust could not maintain the action; (3–4) lack of prior user and absence of likelihood of confusion; (5) the geographical/descriptive nature of "Kovai" defeated the claim; and (6) whether the trial judgment required interference. The High Court answered each point against the appellants. It held that incorporation did not confer immunity from a passing off action; the trust, through its trustees, could enforce goodwill; the plaintiffs had established prior user; the dominant and essential part of the names was identical and the corporate suffix did not materially distinguish the defendants' name; both parties operated in the same field and city thereby making confusion likely; and the geographical element did not defeat protection of the composite name. The court found the plea of delay and acquiescence insubstantial and observed that the decree rested on prior user, goodwill and deceptive similarity rather than on copyright.

The appeal was dismissed, the trial court's judgment and decree dated 04.10.2017 in O.S. No.763 of 2009 were confirmed, and the appellants were ordered to pay the costs of the appeal. Connected civil miscellaneous petitions, if any, stood closed.

Case Details:
Case No.: A.S.No.101 of 2018
Case Title: Dr. V. Rajendran and M/s Kovai Heart Foundation Private Limited v. Kovai Heart Foundation and others
Appearances:
For the Appellant(s): Mr. Arun C. Mohan
For the Respondent(s): Mr. A.R.L. Sundaresan, Senior Counsel; Mr. R. Bharath Kumar

Source: 2026 CaseBase(MAD) 115