Judgment · High Court · 2026

C.S.(Comm. Div.) No.156 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 09.03.2026CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHYC.S.(Comm. Div.) No.156 of 2025andA.No.2834 of 2025 M.Anees AhmedSole ProprietorM/s.Ambur Star BriyaniHaving its Office at No.116/1, Arcot Road, Vadapalani, Chennai – 600 026... Plaintiff vs AMBUR STAR BRIYANINo.52, Next to Indian Oil, Sankaranpalayam, Vellore – 632 001... Defendant Plaint filed under Order IV Rule 1 of CPC read with Order IV Rule 1 of High Court O.S. Rules and Section 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, praying for a judgment and decree on the following terms:a. Granting a permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, their men, servants, agents or anyone claiming through or under them from in any manner Infringing the Plaintiff Trade Mark and Trading style “AMBUR STAR BRIYANI” by using the offending Trade Mark 1/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.(Comm.

Div.) No.156 of 2025and Trading style “AMBUR STAR BRIYANI” or any other mark or marks which are similar or in any way deceptively similar to or a colorable imitation of the Plaintiff’s Trade Mark “AMBUR STAR BRIYANI”;b. Granting a permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, their men, servants, agents or anyone claiming through or under them from in any manner Passing-off the Plaintiff Trade Mark and Trading style “AMBUR STAR BRIYANI” by using the offending Trade Mark and Trading style “AMBUR STAR BRIYANI” or any other mark or marks which are similar or in any way deceptively similar to or a colorable imitation of the Plaintiff’s Trade Mark “AMBUR STAR BRIYANI” ;c. Directing the Defendant to surrender the entire stock of unused offending goods with Trade Mark “AMBUR STAR BRIYANI” with name boards, labels, wrappers, boxes, covers, bags, packets, cartons, bills, advertisements, materials, reports, envelops, brochures, printing blocks, etc., bearing the offending Trademark for destruction;d.

Directing to the Defendant to pay the Plaintiff the costs of the suit and Pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit 2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.(Comm. Div.) No.156 of 2025and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice. For Plaintiff : Mr.M.Dhanush for Mr.Vijayan SubramanianJUDGMENTThis suit was filed for remedies in respect of alleged trade mark infringement and passing off. The suit summons was served on the sole defendant on 13.08.2025. On 22.10.2025, the defendant was set ex parte. Until date, the defendant has failed to enter appearance or apply to set aside the order setting the defendant ex parte.

The plaintiff adduced ex parte evidence by examining Mr.M.Anees Ahmed, Sole Proprietor, of the plaintiff on 07.01.2026. In course of the examination in chief of P.W.1, 35 documents were exhibited as Exs.P1 to P35.

Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff’s great grandfather started the restaurant business in the year 1890 under the name and style of AMBUR STAR BRIYANI. He also submits that the plaintiff has 48 restaurants operating under the name and style AMBUR STAR BRIYANI, including one restaurant each in Dubai 3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.(Comm. Div.) No.156 of 2025and Singapore. He points out that the plaintiff obtained registration of the following device mark under Class 43 in respect of hotel and restaurant services with effect from 05.11.2013 (Ex.P18) and that the said mark was renewed under Ex.P28 for a period of ten years from 05.11.2023.

By referring to the comparison of the plaintiff’s mark and the impugned mark (Ex.P35), learned counsel submits that the defendant’s mark is deceptively similar. Since the defendant is the later user of a deceptively similar mark, learned counsel submits that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree as prayed for.

In the proof affidavit, P.W.1 has asserted that the mark AMBUR STAR BRIYANI is being used since the year 1890. Evidence of use by way of articles published in news papers relating to awards won by the plaintiff have been exhibited as Exs.P1 to P3. The registration certificate issued by the Trade Marks Registry, legal 4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.(Comm. Div.) No.156 of 2025use certificate and the renewal certificate have been exhibited as Exs.P18, P20 and P28. The suit was preceded by cease and desist notice dated 03.12.2024 (Ex.P32).

The above evidence leads to the conclusion that the plaintiff is the prior user and the registered proprietor of the trade mark. On comparison of the plaintiff’s mark and the defendant’s mark (Ex.P35), I conclude that the marks are deceptively similar. They are applied in relation to identical businesses. Therefore, the use of the impugned mark is likely to cause deception or confusion among the relevant section of the public. In the face of the evidence adduced by the plaintiff and in the absence of contra evidence, the plaintiff is entitled to the suit claim. Therefore, the suit is decreed in terms of paragraphs Nos.34(a) to 34(c) of the plaint. As the successful party, the plaintiff is entitled to costs. The defendant is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as costs towards court fee, lawyer’s fees and other expenses. Consequently, connected application is closed. 09.03.2026Index: Yes/NoNeutral Citation: Yes/Nommi5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.(Comm.