Madras High Court Dismisses TTK's Passing Off Suit Against Godrej 'YUMMIEZ' Mark, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs

The Madras High Court has dismissed a suit filed by T.T. Krishnamachari & Co. seeking passing off relief against Godrej Agrovet Limited over the mark “YUMMIEZ”, and directed it to pay Rs.5 lakh as costs, noting the suit had been pending since 2007.

On April 20, 2026, Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy held that TTK failed to establish the case for passing off, observing: “Effectively, none of the elements constituting the classical trinity have been made out by the plaintiffs.”

TTK stated that the mark “YUMMIES” was adopted bona fide in or about the year 1987 and has been used continuously since then in respect of ready-to-eat snacks in different flavors.

They further stated that by virtue of long, extensive, and continuous use, the trade mark “YUMMIES” has acquired a secondary meaning.

TTK contended that Godrej Agrovet's use of “YUMMIEZ” for ready-to-cook products was deceptively similar and likely to cause confusion among consumers with average intelligence and imperfect recollection.

Godrej, in response, stated that it belongs to the well established and highly reputed house of GODREJ and that the label mark consisting of the house mark GODREJ and the word “YUMMIEZ” was independently and honestly adopted in or about June 2006 along with a unique design, layout, get up and colour scheme.

It also relied on the disclaimer in the registration, which stated, "Registration of this Trade Mark shall give no right to the exclusive use of the word 'Yummies.'"

It was further contended that TTK's products are ready-to-eat snacks placed on retail shelves, whereas Godrej Agrovet Limited's products are ready-to-cook items found in freezers.

Evaluating the claim, the court held that in an action for passing off, TTK was required to satisfy the classical trinity of misrepresentation leading to injury to its reputation and goodwill.

On the issue of reputation, the Court found that TTK had not produced sufficient evidence, observing: “On the basis of evidence adduced by the plaintiffs, even if Exs.P6 and P9 were to be taken into account, I am unable to enter a finding that the plaintiffs have established either goodwill or reputation.”

The Court also found no misrepresentation on comparison of the products, stating, “On comparison of the packaging as a whole, I am unable to conclude that the defendant made a misrepresentation or held out that the product is associated in any manner with the plaintiffs.”

In view of these findings, the Court held that TTK was not entitled to injunctive relief or damages.

Accordingly, the suit was dismissed with Rs 5 lakh costs payable to Godrej.