Bombay High Court Temporarily Restrains Use Of 'Kranti Kamat' Mark In Kamats Worldwide Trademark Suit

The Bombay High Court on May 13, 2026, granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in a trademark infringement suit filed by Kamats Worldwide Food Services Private Limited. It restrained Musa Bhai Nadaf, who runs a restaurant under the mark 'Kranti Kamat', from using the mark 'Kranti Kamat', any other mark containing the word 'Kamat', or any mark identical or similar to 'KAMATS'.

Justice Advait M. Sethna, sitting in vacation court, passed the order after finding that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case. The court also found that the balance of convenience tilted in its favour.

Kamats Worldwide had approached the court seeking to restrain Nadaf from using the mark 'Kranti Kamat' or any other mark containing the word 'Kamat'. It alleged infringement of its registered trademark 'KAMATS'.

The company holds trademark registrations for 'KAMATS' in Class 42 and Class 43. These were granted on April 2, 2007, and renewed from time to time.

It was submitted that the mark 'KAMATS' has been in use since January 13, 1986. The plaintiff argued that the word 'KAMAT' forms the "essential and pivotal feature" of its registered mark.

It further contended that Nadaf's use of 'Kranti Kamat' for his restaurant was creating confusion among consumers. The plaintiff also placed customer reviews on record in support of this contention.

The court noted that the defendant had never even applied for registration of the mark 'Kranti Kamat'. It found, prima facie, that the use of the word 'KAMAT' in the defendant's mark not only depicted similarity but also suggested that the plaintiff's registered trademark 'KAMATS' was being replicated so as to create an association with it.

"The use of the mark 'Kranti Kamat' by the Defendant may create likelihood of confusion which, prima facie, cannot be ruled out," the court observed.

The court also relied on its June 16, 2025 order in a similar suit filed by Kamats Worldwide against Amol Ashok Ugale. It noted that the earlier case involved comparable circumstances.

Finding that denial of ad-interim relief would cause irreparable injury to the plaintiff, the court granted ex-parte ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (a). It restrained the defendant and those acting through him from using the impugned mark.

The matter is next listed on June 16, 2026.