Kerala High Court Keeps Wipro's Injunction Over "Brahmins" Sambar Powder in Place

By Imaduddin

Photo: Joel Camelot / Pexels

The Kerala High Court has upheld an interim injunction obtained by Wipro Enterprises Private Limited against a Kerala spice maker that sold a product called "Brahmin(s) Sambar Powder". In a judgment dated 27 October 2026, Justice C.S. Dias dismissed the spice maker's appeal (FAO No. 95 of 2026), leaving the trial court's order in place while the trademark suit continues.

The background

Wipro acquired the Brahmins group business, including the trade mark and goodwill, in 2023. Wipro relied on evidence of long use, including an inauguration notice dated 13 July 1987, which the court accepted as showing prior use at the interim stage. The other side began using the name for its sambar powder in 2011.

The defence that failed

The spice maker argued that it was only using "Brahmin" to describe the product, and relied on Section 30(2)(a) of the Trade Marks Act 1999. That provision allows use of a sign to indicate the kind, quality or other characteristics of goods.

The court did not accept that Section 30(2)(a) works as an open-ended shield. The judgment says Section 30(2)(a) "does not confer an unrestricted licence to use a registered expression merely because the user characterises it as descriptive", and that its application turns on whether the expression is genuinely used to indicate the kind or another characteristic of the goods. The court also rejected the argument that printing one's own house mark on the pack automatically rules out infringement. Where the disputed word is used prominently, the presence of another brand name does not by itself remove the risk of confusion.

How prominent the word is on the packaging, and what impression it creates for buyers, are questions the court left for trial.

Why it matters

The ruling is a useful reminder for food and FMCG brands in India and beyond:

• Descriptive use has limits. A word that also describes a style or origin can still function as a trademark once it has been used as a brand for decades. Calling it descriptive is not enough.
• A house mark is not a safe harbour. Adding your own brand to the pack helps, but does not cure use of someone else's mark as the main identifier.
• Old evidence counts. Records such as a 1987 notice can carry real weight at the interim stage when prior use is contested.

Sources

• Storyboard18: Kerala HC upholds Wipro injunction over Brahmins Sambar Powder (30 Oct 2026)
• LiveLaw: Kerala High Court upholds injunction in trademark dispute with Wipro
• Bar & Bench: Kerala High Court upholds relief to Wipro over Brahmins Sambar Powder trademark
• Kerala High Court order (PDF via LiveLaw)