Religious Significance Of 'Annapurna' Does Not Bar Trademark Protection: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has held that the religious significance of the name “Annapurna” does not, by itself, prevent its protection as a trademark. The court refused to vacate an interim injunction against snacks maker Annapurna Swadisht Limited.

Justice A.D. Maria Clete observed, “The religious significance of a name does not, by itself, render its use as a trademark incapable of protection.”

The court clarified that GEF Foods India Private Limited was seeking protection for its registered mark as an identifier of the commercial origin of its products, not exclusive rights over the name of the goddess for all purposes.

GEF Foods sells spices, masalas and ready-to-cook mixes under the mark “ANNAPOORNA”. It claims rights through Coimbatore-based Sree Annapoorna Foods, whose business began around 1980, when the family running Sree Annapoorna hotels and restaurants started making spice powders and allied food products.

The business, trademarks, trade name and goodwill were transferred to GEF Foods under an agreement and an intellectual property assignment deed dated January 31, 2025. Its predecessor had applied for three trademark registrations in Class 30 in February 2001 and another in Class 29 in April 2009.

Kolkata-based, NSE-listed Annapurna Swadisht manufactures packaged snacks, namkeens, fryums, papads and other savoury products. Its business began in 2015 as the partnership firm Annapurna Agro Industries. The company reported a turnover of about ₹414.92 crore in 2025-26 and told the court that it does not manufacture or sell spices, spice powders or blended masalas.

GEF Foods claimed that it learnt of Annapurna Swadisht's use of the mark in March 2026. It sent a cease-and-desist notice on March 23 and filed the suit in July. On August 5, 2026, the court granted interim injunctions in two applications, one concerning trademark infringement and the other alleging passing off of blended spices as GEF Foods' products.

Annapurna Swadisht subsequently sought to vacate both injunctions. It argued that GEF Foods had not accurately disclosed when it learnt of the competing mark. Its predecessor had opposed Annapurna Swadisht's trademark applications from February 2023, it pointed out.

The court observed that “while it is true that registration does not confer a monopoly over an entire class of goods”, Section 29(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, protects registered marks against similar marks used on similar goods where consumers are likely to be confused or assume a commercial association.

It also ruled that Clause 2.6 of the assignment deed governed the relationship between GEF Foods and its predecessor and conferred no rights on third parties. The court noted that the categories listed in the deed included papadam, vadam and wafers, which overlapped with goods originally sold by Annapurna Swadisht. Whether the assignment deed limited the registered rights in any respect was left open for consideration at trial.

On the similarity between the marks, the court observed that “to the ear, the two marks are the same word”. It noted that the products were “low-priced foodstuffs bought from memory, often by persons who cannot read the English letters on the packet”.

Adding “SWADISHT”, which means “tasty”, would not resolve the problem, the court ruled. The word describes the goods rather than identifying their commercial source. Since Annapurna Swadisht uses “ANNAPURNA” as its house mark across its product range, allowing it to retain the mark on other snacks would preserve the association with a single source.

The difference in the companies' geographical reach also did not defeat GEF Foods' claim. “The geographical extent of the plaintiff's actual sales cannot be equated with the territorial extent of its statutory rights,” the court observed.

Annapurna Swadisht's prior-use defence under Section 34 also failed at this stage. The court noted that the predecessor's use dated to 1984 and its registrations to 2001, both predating the company's adoption of the mark in 2015. It further held that the trademark oppositions showed an assertion of rights rather than consent to use the mark.

The court criticised GEF Foods for claiming that it learnt of the competing mark only in March 2026. It also noted that the pleadings gave GEF Foods' incorporation year as 2008, whereas its certificate of incorporation showed December 23, 2024.

“A party seeking an order without notice to the other side must state the facts accurately and fairly,” the court observed. It nevertheless declined to vacate the injunction altogether, noting that the trademark oppositions had been disclosed in the plaint and assignment deed. The inaccuracies did not displace GEF Foods' prima facie registered rights.

The court left open the objection under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, concerning pre-institution mediation, as well as any application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It also left for trial the allegation that three of Annapurna Swadisht's earliest invoices were fabricated. Whether GEF Foods' mark has the “reputation in India” required under Section 29(4) was also not decided.

The court held that the injunction could not extend indiscriminately to unrelated goods and had to be confined to goods for which a likelihood of confusion had been established. It observed that genuine operational difficulties arising from changes to labels and packaging could be addressed by allowing a limited transition period, subject to safeguards.

The court made the interim injunctions absolute until disposal of the suit and dismissed Annapurna Swadisht's applications seeking to vacate them. There was no order as to costs.