High Court allowed applications for interim injunction restraining respondent from infringing applicant's registered trademark 'Maa'. Court held leave to sue was not necessary under Section 134(2) TM Act and found rival marks deceptively similar.
Orders of ad-interim injunction made absolute; applications allowed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
OA No. 1021 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04-02-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
OA Nos. 1021 & 1022 of 2025 in C.S.(Comm Div) No.276 of 2025
In both O.As.
CavinKare Private Limited 12, Poonthamallee Road, Ekkatuthangal, Chennai-600 032
..Applicant(s)
Vs
Maha Aqua, trading as Mahalakshmi Aqua or Maa Aqua No.32-345/1, Natesh Mudaliyar Street, Bye-Pass Road,Murukambut, Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh-517127
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER IN O.A.No.1021 of 2025: Judge’s summons is filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of Original Side rules read with Order XXXIX rules 1 & 2 of CPC praying to grant an interim injunction restraining the Respondent, by itself, its partners, men, servants, agents, distributors, stockiest, representatives or any one claiming through or under them from in any manner infringing the applicant’s registered trademark MAA under No.1109946 and 6453733 in Class 32 by using an identical trademark MAAS or any other trademark deceptively similar to the applicant’s registered trademark or in any other manner whatsoever, pending disposal of the suit.
PRAYER IN O.A.No.1022 of 2025: Judge’s summons is filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of Original Side rules read with Order XXXIX rules 1 & 2 of CPC praying to grant an interim injunction restraining the Respondent, by itself, its
Page1 of 8
OA No. 1021 of 2025
partners, men, servants, agents, distributors, stockiest, representatives or any one claiming through or under them from in any manner passing off and/or enabling others to pass off the Respondent’s products under trademark MAAS as and for the applicant’s products by manufacturing, selling, or offering to sell, distributing, displaying, printing, stocking, using, advertising their products with a trademark MAA or any other trademark which is identical or similar to the applicant’s trademark MAA or in any other manner whatsoever, pending disposal of the suit.
In both OAs :
For Applicant(s): Mr.R.Sathish Kumar For Respondent(s): Mr.K.Pattabhi
ORDER
In a suit seeking remedies in respect of alleged trademark infringement
and passing off, the plaintiff has presented two original applications seeking interim relief. An order of ad-interim injunction was granted in both the applications on 05.11.2025. The said order remains in force as on date.
(i) The word mark ‘Maa’ was registered with effect from 07.06.2002 by the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff. Pursuant to order dated 20.07.2012,
the plaintiff has been brought on record as the subsequent proprietor of the trademark. Therefore, the plaintiff is the registered proprietor of trademark No.1109946.
Page2 of 8
OA No. 1021 of 2025
(ii) The plaintiff is also the registered proprietor of the following label
mark:
This trademark was registered in the plaintiff’s name with effect from 28.05.2024.
(iii) Both these marks are applied in relation to soft drinks.
(iv) The defendant sells soft drinks under the mark ‘Maas’, The ‘s’ is written inconspicuously in a much smaller font.
(v) The pre-institution mediation failed because the defendant filed a memo stating that the defendant is not willing to settle the matter.
(vi) Considering the near identical nature of the impugned mark and the fact that these marks are applied in relation to identical products, the ad-interim orders are liable to be made absolute.
(vii) Because the plaintiff carries on business in Chennai, the plaintiff is entitled to institute the suit before this Court in terms of Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (the TM Act). The judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Wipro Limited and Others v. Oushadha Chandrika Ayurvedic India (P) Limited and Others, 2008 2 LW 430 (DB) (“Wipro”), is relied upon.
Page3 of 8
OA No. 1021 of 2025
(i) The plaintiff has not pleaded that the institution of the suit is authorised by a board resolution. A copy thereof has not been filed. The judgment of the Delhi High Court in Nibro Ltd. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 1990 SCC OnLine Del 65 is relied on in this regard.
(ii) The plaintiff is a registered user and not a registered proprietor. The requirements of Section 52 of the TM Act have not been satisfied in relation to the institution of the suit by the registered user.
(iii) The plaintiff has failed to obtain leave to sue. Therefore, the suit is not maintainable. The order dated 21.10.2021 in A.No.3185 of 2021 in C.S.No.162 of 2019, M/s.Simpson & Company Limited v. Shri Rhythm Agarwal (”Simpson) , is relied upon in support of this contention.
(iv) On comparison of the two labels, any consumer would be in a position to distinguish between the two products and it will not lead to deception or confusion.
(v) The judgment of this Court in the Procter @ Gamble Company v. IPI India Private Limited and Another, order dated 06.01.2022 in OP(TM) Nos.48, 49 & 50 of 2024, is relied upon.
‘Maa’ are sold all over India. The lineage of the mark is traced back to
Page4 of 8
OA No. 1021 of 2025
07.06.2002 when trademark No.1109946 was registered in the name of the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff. Evidence that the plaintiff’s name has been recorded in the register is available in the form of the history data recorded in the legal use certificate relating to trademark No.1109946. The plaintiff is also the registered proprietor of the label mark under trademark No.6453733.
first use of the mark ‘Maas’ is conspicuous by its absence. Therefore, there is sufficient basis to proceed with these applications by treating the plaintiff as the prior user. The defendant has raised two preliminary objections. The first objection is that the plaintiff has not filed the board resolution. On perusal of the plaint, it is noticeable that the plaint has been verified by Mr.R.Thazhalan, General Manager - Legal and Secretarial and Authorised Signatory. Even assuming that the board resolution was not filed along with the plaint, it is clearly a curable defect. Therefore, this objection does not carry the defendant far while adjudicating these interlocutory applications.
obtained. Section 134(2) of the TM Act reads as under:
(2)For the purpose of clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1), a “District
Page5 of 8
OA No. 1021 of 2025
Court having jurisdiction” shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) or any other law for the time being in force, include a District Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, at the time of the institution of the suit or other proceeding, the person instituting the suit or proceeding, or, where there are more than one such persons any of them, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain.
Explanation.—For the purposes of sub-section (2), “person” includes the registered proprietor and the registered user.”
Page6 of 8
OA No. 1021 of 2025
of the plaint. Both the marks are used in relation to nearly identical products. The plaintiff’s mark is ‘Maa’ and defendant’s mark is ‘Maas’. A much smaller font has been used for the letter ‘s’. Prima facie , when viewed from the perspective of a consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection, the use of the rival mark is likely to cause deception or confusion. The plaintiff has provided prima facie evidence that it entered the market through its predecessor-in-interest in 2002. The defendant has failed to produce any evidence as to when products bearing the impugned mark were first placed in the market. Therefore, the balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff and it is likely that irreparable injury would be caused if the impugned mark is continued to be used pending disposal of the suit. Therefore, the orders of adinterim injunction are made absolute and these applications are allowed.
04-02-2026
KAL
(1/2)
__________ Page7 of 8
OA No. 1021 of 2025
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.
KAL
OA Nos. 1021 & 1022 of 2025 in C.S.(Comm Div) No.276 of 2025
04-02-2026
(1/2)
__________ Page8 of 8
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the suit is maintainable when filed by the registered proprietor under Section 134(2) of the TM Act without filing a board resolution.
Whether leave to sue is required when the plaintiff institutes a suit for infringement under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act.
Whether the marks 'Maa' and 'Maas' are deceptively similar in relation to identical products.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Wipro Limited and Others v. Oushadha Chandrika Ayurvedic India (P) Limited and OthersApplied¶37
Wipro Limited and Others v. Oushadha Chandrika Ayurvedic India (P) Limited and Others, 2008 2 LW 430 (DB)
Nibro Ltd. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.Distinguished¶42
Nibro Ltd. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 1990 SCC OnLine Del 65 · Who else cites this
M/s.Simpson & Company Limited v. Shri Rhythm AgarwalDistinguished¶44
A.No.3185 of 2021 in C.S.No.162 of 2019, M/s.Simpson & Company Limited v. Shri Rhythm Agarwal
Procter @ Gamble Company v. IPI India Private Limited and AnotherDistinguished¶46
Procter @ Gamble Company v. IPI India Private Limited and Another, order dated 06.01.2022 in OP(TM) Nos.48, 49 & 50 of 2024
3 provisions across 2 enactments
CavinKare Private Limited
Maha Aqua
Senthil Kumar Ramamoorthy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
