Chennai, Jan 22 (IANS) The Madras High Court on Thursday reserved its orders in a trademark infringement suit filed by Sangeetha Caterers and Consultants LLP, owners of the popular Chennai-based vegetarian restaurant chain ‘Sangeetha’, against its former franchisees who now operate restaurants under the brand name ‘Geetham’ across the city.
Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy deferred his verdict after hearing detailed arguments from senior counsel A.K. Sriram, appearing for the plaintiff, and senior counsel P.S. Raman, representing the defendants led by Rasnam Foods Pvt. Ltd.
The judge also permitted both sides to explore an out-of-court settlement before the pronouncement of orders and granted liberty to mention the matter if such a settlement materialises.
Recording the submissions, the court noted: “Both parties concluded arguments. Judgment reserved. Since parties have indicated that they would continue to endeavour to resolve the dispute amicably, both parties are granted leave to mention the matter in case they are able to reach a settlement.”
During the hearing, advocate Raman submitted that the prospects of a settlement would be realistic only if the claim was limited to around Rs 3 crore, and not the Rs 130 crore demanded by the plaintiff. On that basis, he urged the court to reserve its judgment and allow time for negotiations.
Arguing the case on merits, Sriram said ‘Sangeetha’ was founded in 1985 by P. Suresh and P. Rajagopal and had grown into a reputed brand with 29 outlets in Chennai and 21 more overseas, built on decades of goodwill and customer patronage. In 2009, the plaintiff granted franchise rights to Rasnam Foods to operate a ‘Sangeetha’ outlet in Velachery, followed by additional outlets in Thoraipakkam, Medavakkam, T. Nagar, Navalur, and at Tata Consultancy Services’ Siruseri campus.
After the franchisees exited the arrangement in 2022, all the ‘Sangeetha’ outlets were closed on May 31 that year.
However, from the very next day, Rasnam Foods and its associate entities began running restaurants from the same premises under the name ‘Geetham’, which, the plaintiff alleged, was deceptively similar to ‘Sangeetha’ and adopted with a dishonest intent to trade on its goodwill built over nearly four decades.
Countering these claims, Raman said the dispute stemmed from the plaintiff’s refusal in 2022 to permit relocation of the loss-making Medavakkam outlet affected by nearby Metro Rail works. He contended that ‘Sangeetha’ had willingly let the franchisees exit, assuming they would not succeed independently, and questioned why the infringement suit was filed only a year after ‘Geetham’ had been operating successfully.
On the continued use of the same locations, he said advance rent had been paid to landlords. He also pointed out that ‘Geetham’ had altered its logo colours following interim court orders and had issued full-page advertisements in top newspapers, clarifying it had no connection with ‘Sangeetha’.
“What more can I do to distance myself from my former principal?” he asked as he concluded his submissions.
–IANS
aal/vd
