Phonetic Similarity in Trade Mark Overrides Product Distinction: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has fortified the protection of registered trademarks in the food industry, ruling that even if goods are not identical, a close phonetic similarity between marks for allied products like spices and snacks is sufficient to establish a likelihood of consumer confusion.

Justice Dr. Justice A.D. Maria Clete adjudicated on the conflict between the registered mark "ANNAPOORNA" used for spices and the defendant's use of "ANNAPURNA" for packaged snacks. The Bench was tasked with deciding whether to vacate an ad-interim injunction against the defendant, who argued that their ready-to-eat products were distinct from the plaintiff's cooking ingredients.

Key Takeaways

Phonetic Identity Trumps Minor Spelling Variations

Courts will treat marks that sound identical as potentially confusing, even if the spelling (e.g., 'OO' vs 'U') differs slightly in script.

Registration Protects Beyond Current Market Geography

Statutory trademark rights are not confined to the specific states where a company currently operates unless a territorial restriction is explicitly registered.

Allied Goods Doctrine Expanded

Ready-to-eat snacks and raw cooking spices are considered 'allied and cognate' goods because they share similar trade channels and consumer classes.

Deity Names Are Protectable Trademarks

While 'Annapurna' refers to a deity, its use as a commercial identifier for food products is eligible for protection against deceptive similarity.

Phonetic Similarity in Trade Mark

The Madras High Court emphasized that the proximity of goods and the identity of the marks creates a risk that consumers will assume a common commercial origin. The Bench discussed that “The close phonetic similarity between 'ANNAPOORNA' and 'ANNAPURNA', when used for cooking ingredients and packaged snacks respectively, may create an impression that the latter constitute another product line of the same manufacturer. Such confusion relates to the commercial origin of the goods, even though consumers may be able to distinguish the products themselves.”

Ratio

Under Section 29(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, trademark infringement is established if the similarity between competing marks and the similarity of the goods is likely to cause confusion among the public, including a likelihood of association. For low-priced foodstuffs bought from memory, phonetic identity between marks used for allied products creates a presumption of confusion regarding the commercial source, which cannot be defeated by minor visual differences or claims of geographical separation.

Background

The dispute arose when GEF Foods India Private Limited, having acquired the decades-old "ANNAPOORNA" brand from Sree Annapoorna Foods, discovered Annapurna Swadisht Limited selling snacks under the name "ANNAPURNA SNACKS". The plaintiff relied on registrations in Class 30 dating back to 2001. The defendant, a listed company with a significant turnover, argued that the products were different and that the plaintiff had suppressed the fact that the dispute had been active in the Trade Marks Registry since 2023.

The defendant sought to vacate the injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, citing financial hardship and employment of thousands of workers. They relied on Vishnudas Trading v. Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. to argue that registration in an entire class does not grant a monopoly over every product. However, the Court distinguished this, noting the plaintiff's registrations specifically covered items like wafers and appalams, which are cognate to the defendant's snacks. The Madras High Court further referenced Power Control Appliances v. Sumeet Machines (P) Ltd. and Midas Hygiene Industries (P) Ltd. v. Sudhir Bhatia to clarify that mere delay or prior knowledge does not amount to acquiescence if the plaintiff has consistently asserted its rights through opposition proceedings.

Ultimately, the Madras High Court held that the balance of convenience favoured the prior registered proprietor, as the defendant had expanded its business while fully aware of the pending trademark oppositions.

Case Details:
Case No.: A. Nos. 3875 & 3876 of 2026 & O.A. Nos. 778 & 779 of 2026 in C.S. (Comm.Div.) No. 223 of 2026
Case Title: Annapurna Swadisht Limited Vs GEF Foods India Private Limited
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr.Sathish Parasaran, Senior Advocate for M/s.P.S.Deepika
For the Respondent(s): Mr.Arun C. Mohan

Source: 2026 CaseBase(MAD) 28347