M S Zaitoon Multi Cuisine Family Restaurant Rep by Its Managing Partner Mr Noufal N K Vs Zaituna Eating House, Rep by Its Proprietor Mohammed Ayuf — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

M S Zaitoon Multi Cuisine Family Restaurant Rep by Its Managing Partner Mr Noufal N K Vs Zaituna Eating House, Rep by Its Proprietor Mohammed Ayuf — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Consent decree granting the permanent injunctions in prayers (a) and (b) of paragraph-44 of the plaint, restraining the defendant from using 'ZAITUNA EATING HOUSE'/'ZAITUNA' or any visually, deceptively or phonetically similar mark infringing the plaintiff's registered trade marks and from passing off its business as that of the plaintiff; remaining reliefs (damages, costs) not pressed; no order as to costs; connected applications closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the defendant's use of the name/mark 'ZAITUNA EATING HOUSE' infringed the plaintiff's registered trade marks (Nos.4932354, 5551472, 5551473, 6129248) and/or constituted passing off of the plaintiff's business (suit ultimately resolved by consent decree, not adjudication).

Court's answer

The suit was decreed in terms of the reliefs claimed in paragraph-44 [(a) and (b)] of the plaint, i.e., the permanent injunctions against infringement and passing off to which the defendant had consented under the compromise.

Ratio / Principle

The court found no legal impediment to the issuance of a decree in accordance with the terms of the Memorandum of Compromise dated 27.02.2026.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Trade Marks Act, 1999 – infringement and passing off – consent decree. Suit by M/s. Zaitoon Multi Cuisine Family Restaurant against Zaituna Eating House over use of 'ZAITUNA EATING HOUSE', alleged to be visually/phonetically similar to the registered trade mark ZAITOON (Regn. Nos.4932354, 5551472, 5551473, 6129248). Parties settled by Memorandum of Compromise dated 27.02.2026; the defendant acknowledged the plaintiff as registered proprietor and prior user of ZAITOON and submitted to a decree in terms of prayers (a) and (b) of paragraph-44 of the plaint (permanent injunctions against infringement and passing off). Remaining reliefs, including Rs.25,00,000 damages, were not pressed. Held: no legal impediment to issuing a decree per the compromise terms; suit decreed accordingly; no order as to costs; connected applications (O.A.Nos.1210, 1211 & 6410 of 2025) closed.

C.S(COMM DIV) No. 336 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 25-03-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY C.S(COMM DIV) No. 336 of 2025 & O.A.Nos.1210, 1211 & 6410 of 2025

In suit and all applications:

M/s. Zaitoon Multi Cuisine Family Restauran,t Rep. by its Managing Partner Mr Noufal N K, No.1, Vantage Plaza, M.G Road, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai 600041

..Plaintiff/Applicant(s)

Vs

Zaituna Eating House, Rep. by its Proprietor Mohammed Ayuf Rep. by its Proprietor, Mohammed Ayuf, 161, Seethakathi Middle Street, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar, Tamil Nadu-626123

Also at No.683, Poonamallee High Road, Opp to Anna Hospital Road, Ayyavoo Colony, Arumbakkam, Chennai-600 106

..Defendant/Respondent

PRAYER in C.S.(Comm Div) No.336 of 2025: Plaint filed under Order IV, Rule 1 of the Original Side rules and Order VII, Rule 1 of the C.P.C. read with Sections 27(2), 29, 134 and 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, praying

(a) to grant a permanent injunction, restraining the defendant by himself , his servants agents distributors, or anyone claiming through him from manufacturing, selling advertising and offering for services using the name ‘ZAITUNA EATING HOUSE’ or any other similar Trade Mark name or similar sounding expression in any media and use the same in name board,

Page1 of 5

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.S(COMM DIV) No. 336 of 2025

invoices, letter heads and visiting cards or by using any other trade mark/ name which is in any way visually or deceptively or phonetically similar to the plaintiffs trade mark name ZAITOON and use the same in pouches , packets or use the mark in invoices, letter head and visiting cards or part of their restaurant services name any other trade, literature or voucher by using any other trade mark which is in any way visually, or phonetically similar to the Plaintiff’s registered Trade Mark Nos.4932354, 5551472, 5551473, 6129248, or in any manner infringing the plaintiff’s registered Trade Marks;

b) to grant a permanent injunction restraining the defendant by itself, its agents or servants or any one claiming through or under him any business marketing, selling, advertising using in trade literature, menu cards, invoices, name boards, website, internet advertisements the mark/name ‘ZAITUNA’ in relation to the restaurant services or with respect to or any other trade or on any other business the impugned trademark/name which is in any manner deceptively or phonetically confusingly similar to the plaintiff’s Trade Mark/name Zaitoon or in any other manner pass off their business or goods as and for that of the Plaintiff;

c) Direct the Defendant topay Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs only)

interest pendent lite @ 12% from date of this suit as damages;

d) Direct the Defendant to pay the costs of legal proceedings and suit;

e) Granting such further or other reliefs as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.

PRAYER in O.A.No.1210 of 2025: Judge’s summons filed under Order- XIV Rule-8 of O.S Rules and Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 & Sec 151 of CPC praying to grant ad interim injunction, restraining the Defendant, by himself, his servants, agents, distributors, or anyone claiming through him from manufacturing, selling, advertising and offering for services using the name ‘ ZAITUNA Eating House’ or any other similar trade mark name or similar sounding expression in any media and use the same in name board, invoices, letter heads

Page2 of 5

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.S(COMM DIV) No. 336 of 2025

and visiting cards or by using any other trade mark/name which is in any way visually or deceptively or phonetically similar to the plaintiffs trade mark/name “zaitoon” and use the same in pouches, packets or use the mark in invoices, letters heads and visiting cards or part of their restaurant services name any other trade, literature or voucher by using any other trade mark which is in any way visually or phonetically similar to the Plaintiff’s registered Trade Mark Nos.4932354, 5551472, 5551473, 6129248 or in any manner infringing the plaintiffs registered Trade Marks, pending disposal of suit.

PRAYER in O.A.No.1211 of 2025: Judge’s summons filed under Order- XIV Rule-8 of O.S Rules and Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 & Sec 151 of CPC praying to grant ad interim injunction, restraining the Defendant,by itself, its agents or servants or anyone claiming through or under him any business marketing, selling advertising, using the trade literature, menu cards, invoices, name boards, website, internet advertisements the mark/name ‘ ZAITUNA’ in relation to the restaurant services or with respect to or any other trade or on any other business the impugned trademark/name which is in any manner deceptively or phonetically confusingly similar to the Plaintiff’s Trade Mark/name zaitoon or in any other manner pass off their business or goods as and for that of the Plaintiff pending disposal of the above suit.

PRAYER in A.No.6410 of 2025: Judge’s summons filed under Order- XIV Rule-8 of O.S Rules read with Order 2 Rule 3 of C.P.C. and Clause 14 of Letters Patent, praying to permit the Applicant/Plaintiff to combine causes of action of infringement of registered trademark and passing off.

In suit and all applications

For Plaintiff/Applicant: Ms. Hemalatha T. For Defendant/ : Mr.P.Arumugarajan Respondent:

Page3 of 5

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.S(COMM DIV) No. 336 of 2025

JUDGMENT

The plaintiff and the defendant have reached a settlement and recorded the terms thereof in Memorandum of Compromise dated 27.02.2026. Such document has been signed by the Managing Partner of the plaintiff, Mr.N.K.Noufal, and by the proprietor of the defendant. Respective counsel have also signed. After acknowledging that the plaintiff is the registered proprietor of

the trademark ZAITOON and the prior user thereof, the defendant has submitted himself to a decree in terms of prayers [(a) and (b)] of paragraph-44 of the plaint.

The plaintiff has agreed that the other reliefs claimed in the suit are not being pressed. I find no legal impediment for the issuance of a decree as per the terms of compromise.

Accordingly, the suit is decreed in terms of reliefs claimed in paragraph-44 [(a) and (b)] of the plaint. In view of the settlement, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected applications are closed.

25-03-2026

Neutral Citation: Yes/No

KAL

Page4 of 5

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.S(COMM DIV) No. 336 of 2025

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.

KAL

C.S(COMM DIV) No. 336 of 2025 & O.A.Nos.1210, 1211 & 6410 of 2025

25-03-2026

__________ Page5 of 5

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis