Sangeetha Caterers & Consultants LLP v. Rasnam Foods Pvt. Ltd. & Others

Madras High Court – Interim and Reserved Judgment (2026) “A brand’s goodwill cannot be traded on imitation.”

SHORT DESCRIPTION

This is a trademark infringement dispute between Sangeetha Caterers & Consultants LLP, the owner of the well-known Chennai restaurant brand Sangeetha, and its former franchisees, now operating under the name Geetham. The Madras High Court has reserved its judgment after detailed arguments and permitted both sides to explore a settlement before pronouncing the final order.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Sangeetha Caterers, established in 1985 by P. Suresh and P. Rajagopal, built a substantial reputation and goodwill through its vegetarian restaurant chain, with 29 outlets in Chennai and 21 internationally over decades. In 2009, Sangeetha granted franchise rights to Rasnam Foods Pvt. Ltd. for outlets in Velachery, Thoraipakkam, Medavakkam, T. Nagar, Navalur, and the TCS office campus in Siruseri.

In 2022, the franchise agreement ended, and Sangeetha outlets closed on 31 May 2022. The very next day, Rasnam Foods and related entities reopened restaurants at the same locations under the brand name Geetham. The plaintiff alleged that the branding—especially the name Geetham—closely resembled Sangeetha, was adopted with dishonest intent, and improperly sought to capitalise on Sangeetha’s established goodwill and reputation.

ISSUES INVOLVED

The controversy raises several trademark law issues under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, including whether the use of a deceptively similar name by a former franchisee amounts to trademark infringement and passing off, whether the defendants’ use of Geetham can mislead consumers into thinking it is connected to Sangeetha, and whether there was suppression of material facts or dishonest conduct in adopting and attempting to register similar marks.

ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES

Plaintiff’s Position: Sangeetha’s counsel argued the Geetham brand was adopted with the intention of riding on nearly four decades of goodwill built by Sangeetha. They asserted that operating restaurants in the same locations and using a name and trade dress resembling Sangeetha’s mark likely caused or would cause confusion in the public’s mind.

Defendant’s Position: The franchisees argued that their new branding was independent and that the dispute stemmed from a disagreement over relocation of the Medavakkam outlet, particularly due to nearby Metro Rail construction. They claimed advance rent payments justified continuing operations at the same locations and stressed that logo colours were modified per interim court directions and public advertisements clarified the business was independent of Sangeetha. They also suggested that a settlement might be feasible at a much lower monetary figure than initially demanded.

COURT’S PROCESS AND STATUS

After hearing detailed arguments from senior counsels for both sides, Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy of the Madras High Court reserved judgment and provided both parties the opportunity to negotiate an out-of-court settlement. The judge emphasized that if the parties reach a settlement, they may inform the court before the final order is pronounced.

SUGGESTION / PRACTICAL TAKEAWAY

This dispute highlights key aspects of trademark infringement and passing off in the context of franchise relationships, especially the risk when former franchisees adopt marks that are phonetically or visually similar to an established brand. It also underscores the importance of clear exit provisions, non-compete terms, and strong brand protection strategies in franchise agreements. The court’s openness to settlement reinforces the value of negotiated resolutions in complex commercial trademark litigation.

OUTLOOK

As of now, the final judgment is reserved and pending. The court has not yet issued its decision, but both parties remain free to report a settlement, which may resolve the matter without litigation.