The Kerala High Court has refused to interfere with an interim order preventing Greenmount Spices from using the names ‘Brahmins’ and ‘Brahmins Sambar Powder’ on its products, leaving the restriction in place until a trademark infringement suit is decided.
Justice CS Dias, while dismissing Greenmount Spices Private Limited’s appeal, held that Wipro Enterprises had presented sufficient material at this preliminary stage to support its claim of earlier commercial use of the disputed trademark.
The Court also observed that continued use of the contested name could weaken the brand’s distinctiveness and cause harm that might not be adequately addressed through monetary compensation if infringement is ultimately established.
The judge clarified that these findings were provisional and would not influence the final decision in the underlying lawsuit.
How the dispute reached the High Court
The dispute began in 2024, when Wipro Enterprises approached a district court seeking to stop Greenmount Spices from manufacturing, marketing, selling or exporting food products under the contested names. Its plea also sought to prevent the use of identical or deceptively similar marks on product packaging, websites, trade names and domain names.
Wipro sought interim protection alongside its suit. The district court granted the application and restrained Greenmount from using ‘Brahmins’ or ‘Brahmins Sambar Powder’ while the case remained pending.
Greenmount challenged that order before the Kerala High Court, arguing that its own trademark was ‘Greenmount’ and that the expression ‘Brahmin Sambar Powder’ merely described the product rather than identifying its commercial origin.
The company maintained that ‘Brahmin’ refers to a traditional Hindu community and that sambar is closely associated with its cuisine. On that basis, it argued that the expression was generic or descriptive and that its use was protected under Section 30(2)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Wipro relies on the brand’s commercial history
Wipro opposed the appeal, asserting that it had acquired the Brahmins business along with the associated trademark rights and goodwill. It stated that it held 29 registrations for the word ‘Brahmins’, which serves as a key identifying feature of its food products.
The company further submitted that its predecessor had introduced Brahmins food products in 1987 and launched ‘Brahmins Sambar Powder’ in 1989. According to Wipro, years of continued sales and promotion had made the name a distinctive, widely recognised household brand.
Wipro also told the Court that it became aware of Greenmount’s use of the disputed expression after receiving complaints from consumers.
Documents placed before the Court, including material relating to the brand’s commercial history and the application to record Wipro as the subsequent purchaser of the trademark, were considered in assessing its claim at the interim stage.
Descriptive use is not an automatic defence
A key question before the High Court was whether Greenmount could rely on Section 30(2)(a) to justify using the contested expression as a description of its product.
The Court made clear that the provision does not offer unrestricted freedom to use a registered trademark simply because a business labels the expression descriptive. The assessment, it said, depends on whether the words are genuinely being used to describe the kind or characteristics of the goods in their actual context.
That question requires closer examination by the district court hearing the main suit, rather than a conclusive determination at the interim stage.
Nevertheless, the material presented by Wipro was sufficient to establish a prima facie case in its favour. The Court also found the balance of convenience to favour Wipro, given the potential damage to the distinctiveness of the mark if the disputed use continued.
Dismissing Greenmount’s appeal, the Kerala High Court upheld the temporary injunction. Greenmount will therefore remain restricted from using the contested names until further orders in the proceedings.
The ruling does not finally settle ownership or infringement of the disputed mark. Those issues remain for adjudication in the main suit.