Kerala High Court rejects Greenmount’s appeal, finding a prima facie case for trademark infringement over the use of Brahmin Sambar Powder
The Kerala High Court has refused to allow Greenmount Spices to use the expression “Brahmin Sambar Powder” on its food products, upholding an interim injunction secured by Wipro Enterprises in a trademark infringement dispute.
Justice C.S. Dias dismissed Greenmount’s appeal, observing that the use of the disputed words could lead consumers to believe that its products were commercially associated with Wipro’s Brahmins food business. The court said the nature of the expression and the possibility of consumer confusion would have to be assessed in the context of the overall product packaging.
Wipro had approached the court seeking to restrain Greenmount from manufacturing, advertising, selling, distributing or exporting food products under the names “Brahmins”, “Brahmins Sambar Powder” or any identical or deceptively similar marks.
The dispute follows Wipro’s acquisition of the Brahmins food products business in 2023, which included its trademark and associated goodwill. Wipro claimed that its predecessor had launched Brahmins Sambar Powder in 1989.
Greenmount, however, contended that “Greenmount” was its distinctive trademark and that “Brahmin Sambar Powder” was a descriptive reference to the culinary traditions of the Brahmin community. It argued that the expression was generic in nature and its use did not amount to trademark infringement.
Court Examines Packaging And Prior Use
Examining Greenmount’s defence, the High Court observed that Section 30(2)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, does not offer an unconditional exemption from infringement claims merely because a disputed expression is described as generic or descriptive.
Justice Dias noted that determining whether the expression was being used descriptively or in a manner that could create a commercial association would require an examination of the packaging as a whole. This would include the placement, prominence and relative size of the disputed words in relation to other branding elements.
The court said these issues involved factual considerations that would need to be examined during the trial and could not be conclusively determined at the interim stage.
It also took note of an inauguration notice dated July 13, 1987, produced by Wipro, which prima facie suggested that the Brahmins food products business had commenced operations that year. Greenmount, meanwhile, had stated in its submissions that it began using the name “Greenmount Brahmin Sambar Powder” only in 2011. This provided preliminary support to Wipro’s claim of earlier use.
The High Court further clarified that a manufacturer displaying its own trademark on a product does not, by itself, eliminate the possibility of infringement. Other words and expressions used on the packaging could still lead consumers to perceive a commercial connection with another business.
Holding that Wipro had established a prima facie case, the court also found that the balance of convenience favoured the company. It observed that allowing Greenmount to continue using the disputed expression could cause harm that might not be adequately addressed through monetary compensation.
The High Court consequently dismissed Greenmount’s appeal, leaving the interim injunction in place and directing the trial court to decide the underlying suit in accordance with law.
