S.Sudhakar / Shri Lakshmi Agro Foods P Ltd. v. Priya Krishnakumar / Krishnakumar

In the crowded aisles of India's spice market, where every shelf is packed with colorful pouches promising flavor and tradition, a single syllable can be the difference between a household staple and a forgotten product. When two brands sound almost identical, the question isn't just about who registered first—it's about who gets to keep their customers. This Madras High Court case from December 2019 puts that question under the legal microscope, and the answer has lessons every founder in the FMCG space needs to hear.

The plaintiff, S. Sudhakar, operated in the food product sector with a registered trademark 'UDAYA MASALA' for their range of spice powders. The brand had built recognition in the market, complete with distinctive artistic work and a logo featured prominently on their product packaging. When a competing product appeared under the name 'UDHAIYAM,' Sudhakar saw red. The visual and phonetic similarity was striking—both names evoked the same Tamil word for 'rising' or 'dawn,' and the packaging allegedly carried artistic elements that mirrored the plaintiff's original designs. The plaintiff filed suit seeking injunctions to halt the alleged infringement, damages for the harm caused, and accounts of the defendant's profits earned through the disputed sales.

On one side, the plaintiff argued that 'UDHAIYAM' was deceptively similar to 'UDAYA MASALA,' creating a likelihood of confusion among ordinary consumers shopping for masala powders. They contended that the phonetic overlap and shared cultural meaning would lead buyers to mistakenly believe the two products came from the same source. Beyond the trademark claim, the plaintiff asserted copyright over the artistic work and logo on their packaging, arguing that the defendant had copied these distinctive visual elements. On the other side, the defendants likely countered that their mark was sufficiently distinct, that consumers in the spice market were discerning enough to tell the products apart, and that the artistic elements on their packaging were independently created. The legal friction centered on where the line falls between legitimate competition and unfair imitation in a sector where packaging and branding drive purchasing decisions.

The Madras High Court delivered a preliminary decree that addressed both the registered trademark infringement claims and the common law passing off principles. The court evaluated the marks 'UDAYA MASALA' and 'UDHAIYAM' through the lens of likelihood of confusion and deceptive similarity, applying the established tests for phonetic, visual, and conceptual resemblance. Simultaneously, the court examined whether the artistic work and logo on the defendant's packaging infringed the plaintiff's copyright in those creative elements. The outcome was mixed—meaning the court found merit in certain aspects of the plaintiff's claims while rejecting or leaving open others. The preliminary decree set the framework for the final resolution, balancing the plaintiff's registered rights and common law protections against the defendant's competing interests.

For founders in the FMCG sector, this case is a wake-up call on multiple fronts. First, trademark registration alone isn't enough—you must actively monitor the market for phonetically or visually similar marks that could dilute your brand. Second, the artistic elements on your packaging aren't just decoration; they may qualify for copyright protection, giving you a second layer of legal armor against copycats. Third, even without a registered trademark, common law passing off principles can protect your brand's goodwill in the market. The lesson is clear: invest in distinctive branding, register your trademarks early, document your original artistic works, and be prepared to defend your identity with every legal tool available—because in the spice aisle, as in any crowded market, similarity is the first step toward substitution.