Common Name or Consumer Confusion? The Real Test in Trademark Law: A Case Analysis

Case title: Dinesh K Jain, Sole Proprietor of M/s.Shree Boutique vs. Kaluram Kumawat and 2 others.

Case number: OA Nos. 778 & 779 of 2025 in C.S (COMM DIV) No. 195 of 2025 and A No. 3695 of 2025

Court: The High Court of Judicature at Madras

Date of decision: 11-02-2026

Coram: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

INTRODUCTION:

The Madras High Court ruled trademark infringement in a case where thedispute arises from the plaintiff’s use of the mark “SHREE BOUTIQUE” and the defendants’ adoption of similar marks such as “SHRI BRIDAL BOUTIQUE” and “SHRI ROYAL BOUTIQUE” within the same commercial locality. The Court granted an ad interim injunction restraining the respondents from using deceptively similar trademarks, in order to prevent consumer confusion and protect the rights of the prior registered proprietor.

BACKGROUND:

The dispute arose when the Plaintiff discovered that the Defendants were operating two retail outlets under the names "SHRI BRIDAL BOUTIQUE" and "SHRI ROYAL BOUTIQUE", both situated in close proximity to the Plaintiff's store. The Plaintiff had been carrying on business since 2019 under the trademark and trading style "SHREE BOUTIQUE", which is registered in Classes 24, 25, and 35 for textiles, garments, and allied retail services. Over six years of continuous and exclusive use, the Plaintiff had built substantial goodwill, customer recognition, and trust through both online and offline operations.

Upon becoming aware of the Defendants' use of the impugned marks, the Plaintiff issued a cease-and-desist notice. In response, the Defendants contended that the words "SHREE" and "BOUTIQUE" are common and descriptive in nature, and that no trader can claim exclusive rights over them.

As the Defendants continued using the impugned marks despite the notice, the Plaintiff instituted a suit seeking an injunction restraining the Defendants from infringing its registered trademark and passing off their business as that of the Plaintiff.

PLAINTIFF’S CONTENTION

* The plaintiff adopted and has been using the mark “SHREE BOUTIQUE” since 2019. Continuous usage, along with invoices and GST registration establishes prior user rights. Furthermore Plaintiff holds valid Word Mark registrations under class 24,25, and 35

* “SHRI BRIDAL BOUTIQUE” and “SHRI ROYAL BOUTIQUE” are deceptively similar to the registered trademark. The similarity in business and the fact that it is located in the similar commercial locality is likely to increase confusion

* The Defendants' adoption of similar packaging and promotional materials further indicated a prima facie mala fide intent to ride on the Plaintiff's goodwill

* Contradicting statement by the Defendants that they were in business several years, in the reply and applied for registration of trademark on proposed to be used basis which reflects how the defendants disregard the legal rights and dishonest intention.

* A defendant who has himself applied to register an identical or similar trademark cannot subsequently contend that the plaintiff's mark is common to the trade or incapable of distinguishing the plaintiff's goods or services.

DEFENDANT’S CONTENTION:

* The Plaintiff has no right to exclusive use of the two words ‘SHREE’ and ‘BOUTIQUE’ and the condition to only use it together.

* The word SHREE is common and is used by many, hence strongly denies utilising goodwill of the Plaintiff, whereas no exclusive right can be exercised.

* Plaintiff failed to show customers were actually misled and furthermore failed to provide concrete evidence of loss or injury.

* With many businesses using the term SHREE, suing Respondent alone is found to be trivial and considered selective targeting as the mark is customary and not unique to the plaintiff.

KEY FINDINGS:

a) The Court established that the plaintiff, being the registered proprietor, held a prima facie case of trademark infringement due to the deceptive similarity between the marks. The continuous use and earlier adoption of mark made the claim strong against the defendants.

b) The defendants failed to provide any evidenceof use. The only material available with regard to the defendants use were theapplications filed by the defendants for registration of the marks “SHRIROYAL BOUTIQUE” and “SHRI BRIDAL BOUTIQUE” in January 2025 on a ‘Proposed to be used’.

c) The plaintiff's registration contained a disclaimer over the individual elements, but its claim was for protection of the composite mark as a whole under Section 17 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

d) The Court compared the rival marks from the perspective of a consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection. Since both parties operated in the same line of business, the Court found the defendants' marks prima facie deceptively similar.

e) The balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff, as the defendants could adopt a different mark, whereas continued use would cause irreparable injury to the plaintiff.

CONCLUSION:

The Court protected the registered trademark through an injunction, but required stricter proof before granting relief for passing off. This highlighted the distinction between infringement and passing off, pertaining to maintenance of careful balance between protecting statutory rights and preventing legal competitive boundaries. Further, a disclaimer in a trademark registration does not deprive the proprietor of protection over the composite trademark. While exclusivity cannot be claimed over the disclaimed individual elements, the mark as a whole continues to enjoy statutory protection under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The dispute was subsequently settled through a Memo of Compromise wherein the Defendant permanently agreed to Cease-and-Desist from using the impugned marks.