The Madras High Court has ruled that the religious significance of the name “Annapurna” does not, by itself, prevent its protection as a trademark, refusing to vacate an interim injunction against NSE-listed snack manufacturer Annapurna Swadisht Limited. The injunction, granted in August 2026, remains absolute until the disposal of the suit filed by GEF Foods India Private Limited, which sells spices and ready-to-cook mixes under the registered mark “ANNAPOORNA”.

Justice A.D. Maria Clete observed that GEF Foods 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. “The religious significance of a name does not, by itself, render its use as a trademark incapable of protection,” the court noted, rejecting the defendant’s argument that the mark’s religious connotation should bar trademark protection.

The dispute centres on two businesses operating in overlapping food segments. GEF Foods, through its predecessor Sree Annapoorna Foods, has been selling spice powders, masalas, and allied products under “ANNAPOORNA” since around 1980. The trademark registrations in Class 30 date back to February 2001, with an additional class 29 registration from April 2009. These rights, along with goodwill, were transferred to GEF Foods under an intellectual property assignment deed dated January 31, 2025. The company reported to the court that it learned of Annapurna Swadisht’s use of a similar mark only in March 2026, triggering a cease-and-desist notice and the subsequent suit.

Annapurna Swadisht, which began operations in 2015 as a partnership firm (Annapurna Agro Industries) and later incorporated, manufactures packaged snacks, namkeens, fryums, papads, and similar savoury items. It reported a turnover of approximately ₹414.92 crore in 2025-26. It argued that it does not sell spices or blended masalas, and that GEF Foods had inaccurately disclosed when it first learned of the competing mark. Moreover, Annapurna Swadisht pointed out that GEF Foods’ predecessor had opposed its trademark applications as early as February 2023, contradicting the claim of recent discovery.

Likelihood of Confusion Among Consumers

The court found that the marks were phonetically identical. “To the ear, the two marks are the same word,” Justice Clete observed. Given that the products are low-priced foodstuffs often purchased from memory—sometimes by consumers unable to read English letters on packaging—the addition of “SWADISHT” (meaning “tasty”) did not resolve the confusion. The court held that “SWADISHT” describes the goods rather than identifying their commercial source, and 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, creating a likelihood of confusion under Section 29(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

Annapurna Swadisht’s defence of prior use 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 defendant’s adoption of the mark in 2015. The trademark oppositions filed by the predecessor showed an assertion of rights rather than any consent to use the mark.

Geographical Reach Not a Shield

The defendant argued that GEF Foods’ sales were geographically limited, but the court rejected that contention. “The geographical extent of the plaintiff’s actual sales cannot be equated with the territorial extent of its statutory rights,” the court said, emphasising that a registered trademark confers nationwide protection.

The court also addressed the assignment deed’s scope. Annapurna Swadisht had argued that Clause 2.6 of the deed limited GEF Foods’ rights, but the court ruled that the clause governed only the relationship between GEF Foods and its predecessor and conferred no rights on third parties. Whether the deed narrowed the registered rights was left open for trial.

Inaccuracies in Disclosure Noted but Not Fatal

The court criticised GEF Foods for claiming it learned of the competing mark only in March 2026, given the earlier trademark oppositions. It also noted that GEF Foods’ pleadings gave its 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. Nevertheless, it declined to vacate the injunction, finding that the inaccuracies did not displace GEF Foods’ prima facie registered rights, and that the trademark oppositions had been disclosed in the plaint and assignment deed.

Injunction Confined to Confusable Goods

The court clarified 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 allowed a limited transition period for Annapurna Swadisht to make necessary changes to labels and packaging, subject to safeguards.

The court also left open several issues for trial, including an objection under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 concerning pre-institution mediation, a potential application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure to reject the plaint, and 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.

Current Status

The court made the interim injunctions absolute until the disposal of the suit and dismissed Annapurna Swadisht’s applications to vacate them. No order as to costs was passed. The parties now await trial, with the snack manufacturer required to comply with the injunction in the interim.