Madras High Court Removes ‘Sangeetham House of Veg’ Trademark for Breaching Court-Recorded Settlement

Madras High Court Removes ‘Sangeetham House of Veg’ Trademark for Breaching Court-Recorded Settlement

Introduction

The Madras High Court has reaffirmed the binding nature of court-recorded settlements in trademark disputes, holding that a party cannot retain or secure statutory trademark rights in violation of a compromise decree. The Court ordered removal of the trademark “Sangeetham House of Veg”, finding that its registration was obtained by suppressing material facts and in direct breach of an earlier settlement mandating a name change.

Factual Background

The dispute involved Sangeetha Caterers and Consultants LLP, which operates the well-known “Sangeetha Veg Restaurant” chain, and a Thiruchendur-based restaurant operating under the name “Sangeetham House of Veg.”

Sangeetha Veg Restaurant alleged that the impugned name was deceptively similar to its established mark, differing only by the addition of the letter “M,” with the suffix “House of Veg” displayed inconspicuously. It also objected to the use of a stylised “S” logo, claiming it closely resembled its own.

Procedural Background

A trademark infringement suit was instituted by the Chennai-based restaurant in early 2024. The dispute was resolved through a court-recorded settlement in March 2024, under which the Thiruchendur restaurant expressly agreed to change its name to “Raagam House of Veg.” The suit was decreed on the basis of this compromise.

Subsequently, the petitioner discovered that the respondent continued using the impugned name and had, in fact, secured trademark registrations for “Sangeetham House of Veg” and the associated logo. These registrations were based on applications filed prior to the settlement but approved thereafter. This led to the filing of a rectification petition before the Madras High Court seeking removal of the mark from the register.

Issues

1. Whether the trademark “Sangeetham House of Veg” could validly remain on the Trade Marks Register despite a court-recorded settlement requiring abandonment of the mark.

2. Whether suppression of the compromise decree while securing trademark registration rendered the registration liable for removal.

Contentions of the Parties

Petitioner: The petitioner contended that the respondent had acted in bad faith by continuing to use the impugned mark despite a binding settlement. It argued that the respondent suppressed the existence of the compromise decree while obtaining trademark registration, thereby misleading the Trade Marks Registry. Such conduct, according to the petitioner, vitiated the registration and warranted rectification.

Respondent: The respondent argued that it had since discontinued use of the impugned name and that the trademark registration was granted after independent examination by the Trade Marks Registry. It contended that the registry’s approval demonstrated absence of deceptive similarity and that the registration could not be invalidated solely on the basis of the prior settlement.

Reasoning and Analysis

Justice N. Senthilkumar rejected the respondent’s defence, holding that a party who has agreed before a court to abandon a mark cannot continue to pursue or benefit from statutory rights over the same mark. The Court emphasised that suppression of material facts, particularly a court-recorded compromise decree, strikes at the root of the validity of a trademark registration.

The Court held that the Trade Marks Registry’s approval could not cure the fundamental illegality arising from breach of a judicial settlement. Once the respondent undertook to change its name and allowed the suit to be decreed on that basis, it was estopped from asserting proprietary rights in the abandoned mark.

Such conduct, the Court noted, justified invocation of rectification powers, as the mark was wrongly remaining on the register.

Decision

Allowing the rectification petition, the Madras High Court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to remove the trademark “Sangeetham House of Veg” from the Trade Marks Register. The Court held that the registration could not survive in light of the binding settlement and the respondent’s suppression of material facts.

In this case the petitioner was represented by Mr.P. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate.