Kerala HC Upholds Injunction Against ‘HAZZA’ Restaurant, Holds Mark Deceptively Similar to ‘LAZZA’ Trademark [Read Judgment]

Kerala: The Kerala High Court has upheld an interim injunction restraining a Kalamassery-based restaurant from operating under the trademark ‘HAZZA Kitchen’, holding the mark to be deceptively similar to the registered trademark ‘LAZZA’ belonging to JSF Holdings Private Limited, a group of companies engaged in the manufacture and sale of ice creams, frozen desserts, and related food products.

The judgment was delivered by Justice S. Manu on 10 April 2026, dismissing the First Appeal from Order (FAO No. 1 of 2026) filed by Taste Box, the proprietor of the HAZZA Kitchen restaurant, against the order dated 17 September 2025 of the II Additional District Court, Ernakulam, which had granted a temporary injunction in favour of JSF Holdings.

JSF Holdings, which markets its goods and services under the trademarks Lazza, Uncle John, Skei, and I & U, filed a suit before the Additional District Court alleging that the appellant had adopted the mark ‘HAZZA’ by replacing the letter ‘L’ in its registered trademark ‘LAZZA’ with the letter ‘H’. The respondent contended that both marks were phonetically, visually, and structurally similar, that they shared an identical colour scheme of gold and black, and that the appellant had deliberately set up its restaurant on the opposite side of the road from the respondent’s factory in the same locality. The respondent asserted that ‘LAZZA’ has been in use since 1990, is a well-known trademark included in the list published by the Trade Marks Registry, and enjoys extensive goodwill across South India and abroad.

The appellant, on the other hand, submitted that the word ‘HAZZA’ is derived from Arabic and means ‘delight or pleasure’, making it conceptually distinct from ‘LAZZA’. It argued that the two marks operated in entirely different fields, the respondent being primarily a manufacturer of ice creams and frozen desserts registered under Class 30, while the appellant was a restaurant in Class 43 — and that there was no evidence of any actual consumer confusion. The appellant also contended that the trial court had committed an error by dissecting the marks rather than comparing them as a whole, in violation of the well-settled anti-dissection rule.

Two principal legal questions arose for determination. First, whether the respondent’s non-use of its Class 43 trademark registration for restaurant services disentitled it from seeking injunctive relief against the appellant. Second, whether the trademark ‘HAZZA’ was deceptively similar to ‘LAZZA’ so as to constitute infringement or passing off.

On the first question, the High Court rejected the appellant’s reliance on the Supreme Court’s decision in Nandhini Deluxe v. Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation [(2018) 9 SCC 183], observing that the said decision arose in the context of an application for registration of a trademark and was therefore inapplicable to a suit for infringement. The Court held that under Section 28(1) read with Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, infringement is dependent on the subsistence of a valid registration and not on actual commercial use of the mark. The Court drew support from the Supreme Court’s decisions in Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. v. Coca Cola Co. [(1995) 5 SCC 545] and American Home Products Corporation v. Mac Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. [(1986) 1 SCC 465], as well as the Delhi High Court’s ruling in Kamal Raheja v. Hahnemann Pure Drug Co. [2025 SCC OnLine Del 7718], all of which affirm that registration confers statutory rights to sue for infringement irrespective of use.

On the second question, the Court applied the principles set out comprehensively by the Supreme Court in Pernod Ricard India Private Limited and Another v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra [2025 SCC OnLine SC 1701]. It reiterated that trademarks must be assessed from the standpoint of an average consumer of ordinary intelligence and imperfect recollection, that marks must be compared in their entirety under the anti-dissection rule, and that proof of an intention to deceive or of actual deception is not required — a likelihood of confusion or association suffices. The Court also noted that dominant features within a composite mark may be identified as an analytical aid, provided the ultimate assessment remains holistic.

Applying these principles, the High Court concluded that the trademark ‘HAZZA Kitchen’ was deceptively similar to ‘LAZZA’. The Court observed that the variation between the marks was minor, involving the substitution of a single letter, and that both marks were phonetically similar and employed an identical colour scheme of black and gold. Although the appellant’s mark included a graphic design and the word ‘Kitchen’ in smaller font, the Court held that these additional elements were insufficient to neutralise the visual and phonetic similarity, since the dominant and prominent feature of the appellant’s mark remained the word ‘HAZZA’. The Court further noted that consumers in routine food-related transactions may not exercise a high degree of alertness, making the risk of confusion particularly acute.

The Court also found that the respondent had a strong prima facie case on the ground of passing off, satisfying all three elements: goodwill in the mark ‘LAZZA’, misrepresentation by the appellant’s use of a deceptively similar mark in close proximity to the respondent’s factory, and likelihood of loss or damage to the respondent’s reputation and goodwill. Additionally, the Court agreed with the trial court’s finding that infringement under Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act was also prima facie established. Since ‘LAZZA’ is recognised as a well-known trademark, the Court held that its reputation was to be assumed, and that the three conditions under Section 29(4): identity or similarity of marks, dissimilarity of goods or services, and the registered mark’s reputation in India, were satisfied on the facts, even if the appellant’s contention that the parties operate in entirely different fields were accepted.

The Court also drew an adverse inference from the circumstances surrounding the establishment of the restaurant. It noted that the appellant had opened HAZZA Kitchen directly across the road from the respondent’s factory and did not operate the restaurant under the same trade name anywhere else. These facts, the Court held, provided sufficient basis to prima facie conclude that the appellant’s adoption of the mark was not honest.

Turning to the considerations governing the grant of interim injunction, the Court applied the framework affirmed in Pernod Ricard India Private Limited and Another (supra), derived from American Cyanamid Co. v. Ethicon Ltd. [(1975) AC 396]. The Court held that substantial triable issues existed, that there was a real likelihood of consumer confusion, that the balance of convenience favoured the respondent as the holder of a long-standing registered trademark, and that irreparable harm in the form of dilution of brand identity and loss of goodwill would result if the injunction were vacated. It further held that allowing the appellant to continue operating under the impugned mark would likely cause the public to perceive HAZZA Kitchen as a sub-brand or brand extension of LAZZA, making the injunction necessary in the public interest as well.

On the question of appellate interference, the Court reiterated the settled principle affirmed in Wander Ltd. v. Antox India (P) Ltd. [1990 Supp SCC 727] and applied by this Court in Seematti Silks v. T. Beena [MANU/KE/2463/2023] that an appellate court ought not to substitute its own discretion for that of the court of first instance unless the discretion below has been exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, or perversely. Finding no such vitiating factor, the High Court declined to interfere with the trial court’s order.

The appeal was accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs, and the interim injunction restraining the appellant from using the trademark ‘HAZZA’ or any mark deceptively similar to ‘LAZZA’ was upheld pending the disposal of the suit.

For Appellant: Advocates Benoy K. Kadavan, Laya George, S. Gopakumar, T.M. Binitha, and Sreelakshmi S.J.
For Respondent: Advocates P. Abraham Cherian, Jaison S. Rozario, Nimmy K. Joseph, Joe Joseph, Aravind Varghese, Pooja Jose, and V. Varun

Case Title: Taste Box v. JSF Holdings Private Limited, FAO No. 1 of 2026

[Read Judgment]