Summary
Sri Anantheshwara Foods Pvt. Ltd., owner of the PAAKASHALA mark, challenged a trial court’s refusal to grant interim relief against a Mysuru-based restaurant called Dosa Corner Paakashale. The High Court reversed the trial court, holding that pending rectification does not bar injunction, and that descriptiveness must be decided at trial.
Background & Facts
Vegan Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. adopted the brand name PAAKASHALA in 2013 for its food and catering services. It assigned the mark to Sri Anantheshwara Foods Pvt. Ltd. in 2018. Since then, the appellant has run a restaurant chain under the registered trademark PAAKASHALA.
In early 2025, the respondent planned to open a restaurant under the name Dosa Corner Paakashale in Mysuru. Before the launch, the appellant issued cease-and-desist notices, but the respondent went ahead. A suit was filed seeking a permanent injunction. The trial court initially granted an ad-interim order but later refused a temporary injunction, calling the mark generic.
Issues for the Court
-
-
- Whether the registered trademark PAAKASHALA is entitled to protection through interim relief.
- Whether the respondent’s use of Paakashale amounts to infringement.
- Whether the pendency of rectification proceedings affects the grant of interim injunction.
-
Key Arguments
Appellant:
• The appellant owns a valid registration for the mark PAAKASHALA.
• Under Section 28(1), registration gives the exclusive right to use the mark for the registered services.
• The respondent’s use of a similar mark creates confusion and infringes that exclusive right.
• The trial court erred by treating the interim application as a final determination on genericness.
• The rectification petition is pending and does not affect enforcement of rights.
Respondent:
• Paakashala is a generic Kannada word meaning kitchen or cooking place.
• The business name is Dosa Corner Paakashale, not just Paakashala, and is visually and phonetically different.
• Use of a generic term cannot amount to infringement.
• A rectification petition has been filed to cancel the registration.
• A newly launched restaurant will suffer if restrained by an injunction.
Court’s Analysis
The Court began by reaffirming a settled principle: a registered trademark is presumed valid until proven otherwise. At the interim stage, courts are not to decide conclusively whether a mark is generic.
It held that the trial court failed to apply the correct standard. As per the Court, a temporary injunction is not about deciding the case finally. It is about preserving rights until trial. It stated that Courts must only examine if the plaintiff has shown:
-
-
- a prima facie case,
- risk of irreparable harm, and
- balance of convenience in their favour.
-
According to the Court, the appellant met all three.
The Court went on to state that the trial court had treated the term Paakashala as generic, which was not appropriate in an injunction application. The Court noted:
“The Trial Court… unnecessarily took pains and dealt with a temporary injunction application as if it were deciding a main issue.” (¶11) It also clarified that rectification proceedings before the Trademark Registry do not bar the court from granting interim relief. It further stated that a party cannot avoid liability for infringement simply by filing a rectification application as rights under registration continue until cancelled.
Based on its analysis, the Court concluded that the respondent’s use of the mark, even with a prefix, amounted to prima facie infringement and could mislead consumers.
Findings & Order
The High Court set aside the trial court’s 03.05.2025 order and granted a temporary injunction. The respondent was restrained from using the word PAAKASHALA or any similar variant, with or without a prefix or suffix, until final disposal of the suit.
Relevant Paragraphs
On prima facie case:
“The plaintiff has made out a prima facie case for the grant of a temporary injunction.” (¶12) On pendency of rectification:
“The pendency of the rectification application has no significance while considering the temporary injunction application.” (¶11) On incorrect standard applied by trial court:
“The Trial Court… unnecessarily took pains and dealt with a temporary injunction application as if it were deciding a main issue.” (¶11)
Disclaimer
This case note has been prepared based on the author’s understanding, views, and conclusions. Opinions of others may differ. A proprietary AI application has been used to create the blog post , and went through basic review before publication.
Citation
Sri Anantheshwara Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Mr. Ravikiran, MFA No. 3553 of 2025, High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, decided on 2 July 2025. http://indiankanoon.org/doc/28498031/ (last visited 15 July 2025).
