THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.10.2026, THE COURT ON 27.10.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

“C.R”C.S.DIAS,J.= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =F.A.O. No.95 of 2026 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Dated this the 27th day of October, 2026

JUDGMENT

The appellant is the defendant in O.S. No. 22 of 2024 on the file of the Additional District Judge-II, Ernakulam. The respondent has instituted the suit seeking to restrain the appellant from manufacturing, advertising, selling, distributing, offering for sale or exporting food products, including sambar powder, and from using the respondent’s trade mark, or any identical or deceptively similar mark— including ‘BRAHMINS’ or ‘BRAHMINS SAMBAR POWDER’—on packaging, websites, as a trade name or domain name, either independently or as part of another mark, with or without a prefix or suffix. Along with the suit, the respondent filed an application for temporary injunction seeking substantially the same relief as in the plaint. The appellant opposed the application by filing a counter- affidavit. By the order under challenge, the Trial Court allowed the application as prayed for. Aggrieved by the order, this appeal is filed.

2. I have heard Sri. Vizzy George Kokkat, learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri. Benoy K. Kadavan, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is ex facie erroneous. The Trial Court has failed to consider the legal principles on the point and the materials on record in their proper perspective. The appellant’s trade mark is ‘Greenmount’, whereas ‘Brahmin Sambar Powder’ is used only descriptively to identify the product. The Trial Court has proceeded on the erroneous assumption that the latter expression was being used as the appellant’s trade mark. According to the learned Counsel, Ext.A44 document demonstrates that ‘Greenmount’ is the distinctive mark and ‘Brahmin Sambar Powder’ merely describes the product; the concurrent use of the expressions, therefore, does not cause any confusion or deception. The learned Counsel also argued that the Trial Court has failed to properly interpret Section 30(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (‘Act’, for brevity). The word ‘Brahmin’ denotes a traditional Hindu community having a cultural association, and sambar is an integral part of their cuisine. The expression ‘Brahmin Sambar Powder’ is generic and descriptive and is protected by Section 30(2)(a) of the Act. Ext. B1 series documents establish uninterrupted use of the trade name ‘Greenmount Brahmin Sambar Powder’ since 2011. The learned Counsel further submitted that the products of both parties have co-existed in the market for years without any confusion in the minds of their respective customers or consumers. The respondent’s predecessor applied for registration only on 06.06.2008. Therefore, no exclusive right can be claimed over the expression ‘Brahmins Sambar Powder’. Learned Counsel also contended that the Trial Court has failed to consider the scope of Sections 15 and 17 of the Act. He accordingly prayed that the appeal be allowed and the impugned order be set aside.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the appeal. Relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Wander Ltd. & Others v. Antox India Pvt. Ltd. [1990 Supp. SCC 727], he submitted that an appellate court ought not to substitute a discretionary order passed by the court of first instance unless such discretion has been exercised arbitrarily, capriciously or perversely. There is no such infirmity in the present order. In 2023, the respondent acquired the Brahmins group business together with its trade mark and goodwill and is now the owner of the trade mark ‘Brahmins’. The respondent holds 29 registrations for the word ‘Brahmins’, which is a dominant feature in respect of food products. The respondent’s predecessor had launched ‘Brahmins Sambar Powder’ i