For more intellectual property updates follow our WHATSAPP CHANNEL  and  SUNS LEGAL | LinkedIn

Introduction

In M/s Sai Silks (Kalamandir) Limited v. SKP B Gopinath Private Limited and 2 Others, C.M.A. No. 441 of 2025, a Division Bench of the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad, by judgment pronounced on 8 September 2026, dismissed an appeal by a saree retailer seeking to restrain a rival from trading as “Kanchipuram Varahi Lakshmi Silks”. The Court held that a registered composite label made up of a geographical name, a generic trade term and the name of a deity confers no exclusive right over those individual words, and that the “average intelligence and imperfect recollection” consumer test should give way, in the age of print, digital and social media, to a perceptive consumer with informed associations. 

Facts of the Case

The appellant is a prominent silk saree retailer with outlets across South India and the registered proprietor of several marks, including “Kancheepuram Vara Mahalakshmi Silks”, “Vara Mahalakshmi Silks Kancheepuram” and “Vara Mahalakshmi”, its registrations consisting largely of label marks in a yellow-and-red colour combination with a stylised representation of a feminine deity.

The second respondent had earlier entered into a business Memorandum of Understanding with the appellant to manage the day-to-day affairs of its Chennai outlet. In 2024, the respondents commenced an independent business under the trade name “Kanchipuram Varahi Lakshmi Silks”, which the appellant claimed violated its rights.

The appellant instituted O.S. No. 296 of 2024 before the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad, seeking a permanent injunction and infringement relief under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 read with Section 55 of the Copyright Act, 1957. It filed two interlocutory applications: I.A. No. 2449 of 2024, for appointment of a Local Commissioner to seize infringing materials; and I.A. No. 2450 of 2024, for an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the “Kanchipuram Varahi Lakshmi Silks” mark or any deceptively similar mark. Both sought only interim relief; the underlying suit remains pending before the Trial Court, and this appeal concerned only the correctness of its refusal.

By a Common Order dated 24 July 2025, the Trial Court dismissed both applications, holding that the competing marks contained striking dissimilarities outweighing any phonetic similarity, that the appellant’s mark consisted of a word in common use indicating geographical origin, and that the respondents had not copied its core features.

Argument in Favour

The appellant submitted that it was the registered proprietor of several marks, including “Kancheepuram Vara Mahalakshmi Silks”, and that through sustained expansion across South India by way of numerous retail outlets, the mark “Vara Mahalakshmi” had become exclusively associated with it, carrying a goodwill the law was bound to protect.

It was further urged that the respondents’ trade name was phonetically, visually and structurally deceptively similar to the appellant’s trade dress. The appellant also relied on the conduct of the second respondent, who, having been entrusted with managing its Chennai outlet, used the knowledge so acquired to commence a competing business in 2024.

Argument Against

The respondents contended that the appellant had suppressed material facts, in particular the business Memoranda of Understanding of 27 September 2012 and 3 November 2014, under which the parties had agreed to revenue-sharing arrangements, and that the suit had been instituted to evade those obligations.

On the merits, they relied on Section 17 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 to urge that the appellant could claim no exclusive right over a composite mark, and that there was no likelihood of confusion between the two marks.

Court’s Decision

Infringement rests on the statutory right conferred by Section 29 of the 1999 Act, enabling the proprietor of a registered mark to prevent another from using or selling goods bearing that mark. Passing off is a common law remedy for an unregistered mark, expressly preserved by Section 27(2). Drawing on Salmon and Hueston on the Law of Torts, 21st Edition, the Court described passing off as a species of injurious falsehood, protecting traders against the appropriation, by misleading devices, of a rival’s reputation.

Both actions turn on the likelihood of confusion among consumers, an element the Court located within Section 2(1)(zb), defining a trade mark as one capable of graphic representation and of distinguishing one person’s goods from another’s, extending to shape, packaging and trade dress. To obtain interim relief the appellant had to satisfy the troika of a prima facie case, irreparable injury and balance of convenience, and the classical trinity in Reckitt & Colman Products v. Borden, (1990) RPC 341 (HL) – goodwill, misrepresentation as to origin, and consequential damage.

On a side-by-side comparison, the Court found the visual differences obvious to the eye and sufficient to outweigh the similarities, since the appellant’s mark is a label, not a word mark simpliciter, and its constituent words were common words, which cannot be monopolised absent acquired distinctiveness. “Kancheepuram” is a Tamil Nadu city renowned for its silks, recognised as a Geographical Indication in 2005–2006; “Silks” is common to the saree trade; “Vara Mahalakshmi” is Sanskrit for Goddess Lakshmi, while “Varahi” denotes her boar-faced manifestation. The appellant could claim no proprietary right over these words or their variations.

Section 17(1) provides that registration of a mark consisting of several matters confers an exclusive right to the mark as a whole, while Section 17(2)(a) denies exclusive right in any part not separately registered. Section 17(2)(b), which the Court found decisive, denies exclusivity over matter common to the trade or non-distinctive in the sense of Section 9(1). Since “Kancheepuram” and “Silks” were common to the trade and all three expressions incapable of distinguishing the appellant’s goods, the claim fell within that restriction; association was material since Section 29(2) covers the likelihood of confusion or association between the marks.

The label also contained no single dominant or essential feature – a peculiar word, graphic, stylised representation or colour combination – capable of indicating origin. As counsel for both parties informed the Court that the marks denote the respective shops of the parties, confusion was reduced further: purchasing a saree is a planned activity involving visual and tactile assessment, rarely undertaken on a shop’s name alone. The traditional test of average intelligence and imperfect recollection was therefore unsuitable, shifting instead to a perceptive consumer mindful of source, brand, quality, comfort and aspirational index.

Finding no error in the Trial Court’s approach, the Bench dismissed C.M.A. No. 441 of 2025 and all connected applications, with no order as to costs.

Conclusion

The judgment restates a limitation frequently overlooked by proprietors of composite label marks: registration confers an exclusive right over the composite as a whole, not separate monopolies over each word, device or colour. Where the constituent elements are a geographical name, a generic description of the goods, or an expression drawn from religious tradition, Section 17(2)(b) operates as a statutory bar, and commercial expansion alone will not make them one trader’s exclusive property unless distinctiveness is independently proved.

The decision is equally instructive on phonetic resemblance, which is relevant but not self-sufficient. Where rival marks are labels identifying retail outlets rather than packaged products, and the purchase is deliberate rather than impulsive, the visual impression assumes primacy over aural resemblance between ordinary words.

Of wider consequence is the observation on the notional consumer, which the Bench has held no longer reflects a public continuously exposed to brand communication. The revised standard, if followed, would raise the threshold for confusion in high-involvement purchases, with protection depending increasingly on the strength of the mark actually adopted.