Sangeetha; Geetham
| Photo Credit: M. Srinath/B. Velankanni Raj
The Madras High Court has reserved its orders in a trademark infringement suit filed by Sangeetha Caterers and Consultants LLP, the owners of the popular Chennai-based restaurant chain ‘Sangeetha,’ against its former franchisees who now run a host of restaurants across the city under the brand name, ‘Geetham.’
Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy deferred his verdict after hearing the arguments advanced by senior counsel A.K. Sriram for the plaintiff and senior counsel P.S. Raman for the defendants. The judge also permitted the parties to attempt an out-of-court settlement before he pronounces the orders, and inform him if it fructifies.
The judge wrote: “Both parties concluded arguments. Judgment reserved. Since parties have indicated that they would continue to endeavour to resolve the dispute amicably, both parties are granted leave to mention the matter in case they are able to reach a settlement.”
Mr. Raman told the court the chances of a settlement would be possible if the demand was somewhere around ₹3 crore and not a whopping ₹130 crore. Therefore, he requested the court to reserve its judgment and grant liberty to make a mention in case of a settlement.
What is the case about?
Earlier, arguing the suit on merits, Mr. Sriram told the court ‘Sangeetha’ was founded by P. Suresh and P. Rajagopal in 1985 and it grew into a chain of 29 outlets in Chennai and 21 more in various countries due to the hard work of the founders and the patronage of the guests.
In 2009, the plaintiff company granted franchise to Rasnam Foods Pvt. Ltd. to start a restaurant at Velachery in Chennai. Thereafter, it granted franchise to start ‘Sangeetha’ restaurants in Thoraipakkam, Medavakkam, Tata Consultancy Services’ office in Siruseri, T. Nagar, and Navalur too.
The franchisees decided to exit the franchise in 2022. Accordingly, all those Sangeetha franchise outlets were closed on May 31, 2022, but from the very next day, Rasnam Foods and its associated companies began running restaurants under the brand name of ‘Geetham’ from the same locations, he complained.
Claiming that the entire exercise was carried out in secrecy, he said, the adoption of the name ‘Geetham’ was very similar to the name ‘Sangeetha,’ which had garnered the goodwill of the people over the last 40 years, and it had been done with the dishonest motive of encashing upon the goodwill and reputation of Sangeetha.
On the other hand, Mr. Raman, representing Rasnam Foods, said, the necessity for starting ‘Geetham’ would not have arisen at all if the plaintiff had in 2022 accepted his client’s request to shift the Medavakkam outlet, to a different location, which was suffering losses because of the Metro Rail work that was carried out closeby.
The refusal to permit the re-location of one outlet snowballed into a major dispute between the franchisor and the franchisee, he said, and claimed the plaintiff had willingly let his client go away and start their own restaurants presuming that they may not make it big without the support of the plaintiff.
It was only after one year since the Geetham chain of restaurants were started and run successfully that the plaintiff had chosen to file the present suit for infringement of trademark, the senior counsel said, and questioned as to what prevented Sangeetha Caterers from approaching the court sooner.
Also, explaining the reason for running the restaurants at the same locations, he said, the defendants had paid the rent in advance to the landlords and therefore, they had chosen to remain in the same places. He also said, Geetham had changed the colours of its logo pursuant to interim orders passed by the court.
“I have also taken out full page advertisements in The Hindu and Dina Thanthi saying that I have nothing to do with the plaintiff. What more can I do? How much more can I distance myself from my ex-principal?” Mr. Raman asked before concluding his arguments.
Published – January 22, 2026 03:20 pm IST
