ANNAPOORNA against ANNAPURNA: an injunction is made absolute, and an undertaking shapes its edges

Justice A. D. Maria Clete makes an interim injunction absolute till disposal of the suit, refuses to carve snacks and namkeens out of it, and confines the passing-off limb to blended spices on the defendant's own undertaking.

The plaintiff, a Chennai and Hyderabad food company, owns the registered trade mark ANNAPOORNA. The defendant, a Kolkata company, is named Annapurna Swadisht Limited and sells under ANNAPURNA. An ad interim injunction was granted on 5 August 2026; the defendant applied to have it vacated, offering an undertaking about part of its range. On 9 October 2026 the Commercial Division of the Madras High Court made the injunction absolute until the suit is disposed of, dismissed the vacation applications, and drew the boundaries of the order in a way that is worth noting.

Two applications, pulling in opposite directions

The plaintiff's applications sought to restrain the defendant, its partners, successors in business, servants, agents, distributors, dealers, stockists, wholesalers, retailers, shopkeepers, representatives and assigns from infringing the registered mark ANNAPOORNA by use of the identical mark ANNAPURNA, or any mark identical or deceptively similar to it, in respect of any goods or services, pending disposal of the suit. The defendant's applications asked that the injunction granted in August be vacated.

Senior Advocate Mr. Sathish Parasaran appeared for the defendant in the vacation applications; Mr. Arun C. Mohan for the plaintiff.

The assignment defence

The defendant's main legal answer was about the chain of title to the mark, and the Court took it apart in stages.

Under Section 29(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 protection extends to similar goods where the similarity between the competing marks and goods is likely to cause confusion among the public, including an association with the registered trade mark. That is the frame in which the rest sits.

The defendant relied on a clause of the assignment under which the plaintiff took the mark, and on Section 37, which deals with a registered proprietor's power to assign. The Court held the clause regulates what the plaintiff as assignee may do as between itself and its assignor: “the defendant is a stranger to it, and it confers no right on any third party”. The principle that an assignee takes no better right than its assignor had was accepted as sound, but it did not help at this stage — the predecessor held the registrations in Classes 30 and 29, the plaintiff sues on those registrations, and the defendant had not shown that the registrations themselves were assigned only in part. The Court also noted that the categories listed in the clause relied on include papadam, vadam and wafers, which are the defendant's own original goods. Whether the assignment limits the registered rights in any respect is left for trial.

A further authority invoked by the defendant concerned rectification of a registration wider than the goods actually traded in — which, the Court pointed out, is worked out in rectification proceedings, and the defendant had taken none.

Modification, and the limits of an undertaking

The procedural point came first, and the Court dealt with it generously. Although the defendant had sought only variation or partial discharge of the injunction in the body of its affidavit, its final prayer asked for complete vacation. The substance of the request being clear, the Court held itself empowered to consider an appropriate modification under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code rather than treating the mismatch as fatal.

On the merits of that modification, the two limbs of the claim were treated differently, and the difference turns entirely on what the undertaking was worth in each.

On snacks and namkeens, the undertaking offered “does not justify excluding snacks and namkeens from the injunction when the use of the impugned mark on those goods has been found prima facie likely to cause confusion”. Where confusion is already made out prima facie, a promise to behave does not substitute for the order.

On the passing off application, the position was the reverse. That claim was confined to blended spices, which the defendant says it does not sell and undertakes not to sell under ANNAPURNA. “An injunction in those terms causes it no hardship, and rests on its own undertaking.” Where a defendant says it is not in a market and will not enter it, an injunction in those terms costs it nothing and is granted on its own concession.

Order

The defences raised did not justify the defendant's continued use of the impugned mark. The plaintiff had established a prima facie case of infringement and a likelihood of irreparable injury to its goodwill and reputation, and the balance of convenience lay with it. The plaintiff was accordingly held entitled to an interim injunction pending disposal of the suit, confined to the goods and uses identified.

Both of the plaintiff's applications were allowed, the ad interim injunction of 5 August 2026 was made absolute till disposal of the suit, and the two applications seeking vacation were dismissed. There was no order as to costs.