Karnataka High Court Dismisses Eternal, Formerly Zomato, Appeal Against Order Restraining Use Of 'Eternal' Mark
The Karnataka High Court recently dismissed an appeal filed by Eternal Limited, formerly known as Zomato Limited, against a trial court's ad-interim ex-parte injunction restraining it from using the trademark "Eternal" in relation to services similar to those offered by Bengaluru-based Eternl Resilienttech Private Limited.
Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar held that the trial court had recorded reasons while granting the ex parte injunction. The court ruled that Eternal's remedy lay before the trial court and not in a direct appeal.
The dispute arose after Eternl Resilienttech, incorporated in 2013, claimed prior rights over the trademark "Eternl," registered since March 20, 2018.
It alleged that Zomato Limited, after rebranding itself as Eternal Limited, obtained registration for the mark "Eternal" only on March 28, 2022, years after the plaintiff's registration.
The trial court, on June 8, 2026, granted an ad-interim ex-parte order restraining Eternal Limited from using the mark "Eternal" or any deceptively similar mark, across its website, digital platforms, applications and stock exchange filings, in relation to services similar to the plaintiff's business.
Eternal Limited challenged this order before the High Court
The court clarified that it would not examine the merits of the case, since the sole issue was whether the trial court's order suffered from any infirmity in law. It framed the question as "whether the Trial Court assigned reasons or not."
Examining the trial court's order, the Court found that reasons had, in fact, been recorded. It noted that the trial court had considered the plaintiff's trademark registration date, compared the phonetics of the two marks, and observed that "the phonetics of both 'Eternl' and 'Eternal' are one and the same and only the alphabet 'a' is different in between these two words."
The Court held that a detailed discussion of voluminous documents was not mandatory at the ad-interim stage. It observed, "whatever documents are placed by the plaintiff and even if they are considered and mentioned in the order, it is sufficient to hold that the Trial Court applied its mind."
The Court drew a clear distinction between orders passed with reasons and those passed without any reasons at all. It observed that where an ad-interim order does not contain any reasons whatsoever in nature at all, interference under appeal or writ jurisdiction may be warranted. However, where reasons exist, "the quantum of reasons or omission of some words expressly or otherwise does not mean that an ad-interim ex-parte order of temporary injunction is without reasons."
The Court held that Eternal Limited's proper remedy was to approach the trial court itself under, and not file a direct appeal. "The insufficiency of quantum of reasons cannot be a ground to challenge an ad-interim ex-parte order of temporary injunction in an appeal," the Court held.
The Court dismissed the appeal but granted liberty to Eternal Limited to file an application before the trial court.
It directed the trial court to dispose of any such application within four weeks.
The Court clarified that the injunction would remain confined to business operations and services similar to those of the plaintiff, and that Eternal Limited could continue its other business operations, "other than the services and business of the plaintiff, namely 'Nugget,' to any new customers."
For Eternal Limited: Senior Counsel S.S. Nagananada and Dhyan Chinnappa, a/w Vikram Unni Rajagopal
For Eternl Resilienttech Private Limited: Senior Counsel Uday Holla, a/w Sammith S.