Can a Religious Name Work as a Brand?

Summary

GEF Foods India Private Limited, which sells spices under ANNAPOORNA through a predecessor active since the 1980s, sued Annapurna Swadisht Limited, a listed Kolkata snack maker using ANNAPURNA. The Madras High Court confirmed an interim injunction, holding that a deity's name can still serve as a trademark. It rejected prior-use, acquiescence and hardship defences, disapproved an inaccurate statement in the plaint, and confined the relief to goods where confusion was shown. The Annapurna trademark ruling clarifies how religious names, descriptive add-ons and opposition history operate at the interim stage.

Background

A goddess’s name, a snack business turning over about Rs. 414.92 crore a year, and registrations dating to 2001 met head on before the Madras High Court in a dispute over the Annapurna trademark.

GEF Foods India Private Limited (“GEF Foods”) sells spices, masalas and ready-to-cook mixes under the mark ANNAPOORNA. It traces its rights to Sree Annapoorna Foods, a Coimbatore business dating to about 1980, which held registrations in Class 30 (applied for in 2001) and Class 29 (applied for in 2009) and assigned its business, marks and goodwill to GEF Foods by a deed dated 31 January 2025. Annapurna Swadisht Limited (“Annapurna Swadisht”), based in Kolkata, began in 2015 as a partnership and now sells snacks, namkeens, papads and fryums under ANNAPURNA and ANNAPURNA SWADISHT. The predecessor opposed its trademark applications from February 2023. GEF Foods sent a cease-and-desist notice on 23 March 2026 and sued in July 2026 for infringement under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (“Trade Marks Act”) and for passing off. On 5 August 2026, the court granted an ad interim injunction. Annapurna Swadisht applied to vacate it, and GEF Foods sought to make it absolute.

Issues

1. 1. Whether a deity’s name with religious meaning can be protected as a trademark, and whether common trade use weakens that protection.
   2. Whether ANNAPURNA SWADISHT is deceptively similar to ANNAPOORNA under Section 29(2) of the Trade Marks Act for spices, papads and snacks.
   3. Whether the prior-use defence under Section 34, delay and acquiescence defeat the injunction, given the oppositions filed from 2023.
   4. Whether an inaccurate statement on when GEF Foods learnt of the mark, and the limits in the assignment deed, justify vacating the injunction.
   5. Whether the restraint must be confined to specific goods, and whether commercial hardship justifies relief.

Annapurna Swadisht’s Arguments

• • The plaint claimed knowledge only in March 2026, yet the predecessor opposed Annapurna Swadisht’s applications in February 2023, so the claim of urgency rested on suppression.
  • Clause 2.6 of the assignment deed confines GEF Foods to “Permitted Categories”, and an assignee cannot hold wider rights than the assignor under Section 37.
  • The predecessor watched the company grow and list publicly before issuing notice, which amounts to acquiescence.
  • Annapurna is a devotional, food-related name common in the trade, and GEF Foods, incorporated recently and strongest in the South, has shown no nationwide reputation under Section 29(4).
  • Raw spices and ready-to-eat snacks are different goods, no actual confusion exists, and a restraint on “any goods” is overbroad.
  • Hundreds of workers and public shareholders face harm, and the company offered not to sell raw spices or blended masala and to print its corporate identity on packs.

GEF Foods’ Arguments

• • The predecessor used the mark from the 1980s and held unchallenged registrations from 2001 and 2009, while Annapurna Swadisht started only in 2015.
  • The marks are phonetically identical, and spices, snacks and fryums are allied goods sold through the same trade channels.
  • Clause 2.6 governs only GEF Foods and its predecessor and gives a stranger no rights.
  • Filing oppositions asserted its rights, and delay without positive conduct signalling consent is not acquiescence.
  • Commercial hardship cannot override statutory rights, and Annapurna Swadisht expanded with full knowledge of the challenge.

Court’s Observations and Analysis

A Deity’s Name Can Still Identify a Brand

The court held that the religious significance of a name does not, by itself, make it incapable of protection as a trademark. The court noted that GEF Foods sought protection for ANNAPOORNA as an indicator of commercial origin, not ownership of the goddess’s name. The court observed that any claim of common trade use must be proved with evidence and may bear on distinctiveness, but religious origin alone cannot defeat the Annapurna trademark at the interim stage. The court further observed that registration confers no monopoly over a class of goods, although Section 29(2) still protects a registered mark against a similar mark on similar goods where confusion or an assumed association is likely.

Sound, Descriptive Add-ons and the House Mark

The court reasoned that the test is whether an ordinary consumer with imperfect recollection would believe the goods share a source. The court found the marks phonetically identical and noted that papads, fryums and appalams are practically the same goods, although the presumption under Section 29(3) does not apply to non-identical goods. The court stated that SWADISHT merely describes the goods and does not signal a different source. The court observed that the gap between cooking spices and ready-to-eat snacks is relevant but not decisive, and that use of ANNAPURNA as a house mark across Annapurna Swadisht’s range strengthens the risk of association. Reputation under Section 29(4) was left for trial.

Prior Use, Delay and Opposition

The court held that the Section 34 defence fails at this stage, because Annapurna Swadisht’s own case begins in 2015 while the predecessor’s use dates to 1984 and its registrations to 2001. The court found that opposition proceedings assert rights rather than signal consent, and that delay without conduct indicating assent is not acquiescence. The court further held that clause 2.6 of the assignment deed binds only its parties, and that whether it narrows GEF Foods’ rights goes to trial.

Candour, Hardship and the Shape of Relief

The court found GEF Foods’ statement that it learnt of the mark in March 2026 inaccurate and material to urgency, and stated that a party seeking an ex parte order must state facts accurately and fairly. The court reasoned, however, that vacating the order was unnecessary, because the oppositions were disclosed in the plaint and the inaccuracy did not displace prima facie registered rights. The court opined that hardship does not justify continued use, since Annapurna Swadisht can still sell snacks under a non-infringing mark. The court held that the Annapurna trademark restraint must be limited to goods where confusion is shown, with passing off relief confined to blended spices.

Findings

In view of the observations and the arguments presented by both the parties, the Madras High Court held that:

• • The religious significance of ANNAPURNA does not bar its protection as a trademark, and any common trade use must be proved at trial.
  • GEF Foods established a prima facie case of infringement, as the marks are phonetically identical, the goods are allied, and SWADISHT is descriptive.
  • The prior-use defence under Section 34 and the plea of acquiescence fail at the interim stage, since the 2023 oppositions asserted GEF Foods’ rights.
  • Clause 2.6 of the assignment deed binds only its parties, and its effect on the registered rights and the Section 29(4) reputation question are left for trial.
  • GEF Foods’ inaccurate statement on its date of knowledge was disapproved but did not warrant vacating the injunction.
  • The injunction is confined to the goods where confusion was shown, and the passing off relief is confined to blended spices.
  • The applications for interim injunction were allowed, the ad interim injunction of 5 August 2026 was made absolute until disposal of the suit, the applications to vacate were dismissed, and no costs were awarded.

Case Citation: GEF Foods India Pvt. Ltd. v. Annapurna Swadisht Ltd., A. Nos. 3875 & 3876 of 2026 and O.A. Nos. 778 & 779 of 2026 in C.S. (Comm. Div.) No. 223 of 2026, High Court of Judicature at Madras, decided on 9 October 2026. Judgement copy available Here.

Authored by Gaurav Mishra, IP Attorney, BananaIP Counsels