Hungry customers won’t be able to distinguish between ‘Sangeetha’ and ‘Sangetha’: Madras High Court in trademark case

Image used for representation | Photo Credit: M. Srinath

The Madras High Court has restrained a restaurant located opposite the Thanjavur Brihadeeswarar Temple, a UNESCO World Heritage Site, from using the name ‘HOTEL SANGETHAS PURE VEG RESTAURANT’ after observing that hungry customers are likely to be deceived into believing that it belongs to the popular Sangeetha chain of restaurants spread across the world.

Justice P.B. Balaji quoted Tamil poetess Avvaiyar’s statement, ‘Pasi Vandhal Pathum Paranthu Pogum’ (hunger could make one forget even the 10 virtues that he/she is supposed to follow), and the Tamil idiom, ‘Pasi Kanna Kattuthu’ (hunger could make your vision go blurry), to reject the argument that customers would be able to note the difference between ‘Sangeetha’ and ‘Sangetha.’

Passing interim orders in a trademark infringement suit filed by Sangeetha Caterers and Consultants LLP, the judge wrote: “A hungry person is the most potential customer for the respondent (Hotel Sangethas Pure Veg owned by Narayanan Chandrasekaran). He is not going to see or notice the colour scheme or the device marks used, but will easily get carried away by the name.”

The judge went on to state that though the respondent had dropped an ‘e’ from the name of his restaurant in English, he had still chosen to write the name as Sangeetha in Tamil. “It is not as if in Tamil language, there is no equivalent word or manner to replicate the English name Sangethas. It is very much possible to exactly convey the same spelling and even a different pronunciation, if really intended,” he added.

“In fact, applying the quote and the idiom that I have discussed above, a customer would easily be deceived by the name of the respondent and would be blind to the colour scheme, spelling, viz., omission of an ‘e’, use of ‘Hotel’ as a prefix or even the device marks (wheel and conch as against a veena used by the plaintiff) and is very likely to be carried away by the name and only associate it with the plaintiff,” the judge said.

Justice Balaji also rejected the argument that the plaintiff does not have any branches in Thanjavur and hence, there was no cause for confusion among customers. “Given the rich cultural heritage of this place, it is an undeniable fact that there is a huge floating population visiting this city, especially to see the Big temple... Given the number of visitors or travellers from various parts of the world to the city of Thanjavur, it is highly possible that they may only see the respondent’s hotel as that of the plaintiff’s,” he concluded.

Published - October 31, 2026 01:45 pm IST