‘Consumers don’t do meticulous comparisons’: Kerala High Court backs LAZZA in HAZZA copyright row

Justice S Manu Kerala noted that the Lazza brand’s case was not that the marks were identical, but that they were deceptively similar. (AI-enhanced image)

The high court was acting on the appeal filed by HAZZA against the interim injunction on the use of the brand name granted in favour of LAZZA in September 2025.

‘Lazza’ vs ‘Hazza’

• The company, having the brand of LAZZA, stated that it belongs to a group of companies established in 1972 and is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling goods such as ice creams, milk products, non-alcoholic beverages, syrups and other foodstuffs. 
• They also mentioned that they offer services related to providing said goods by way of establishing restaurants, parlours and kiosks in India and various foreign countries. 
• It was claimed that these goods and services of the company are manufactured, sold and supplied under the trademarks LAZZA, Uncle John, Skei and I & U.
• They further claimed that the trademark LAZZA has been in use since 1990, and the word has become distinctive in relation to the goods and services that are being supplied and sold across the country and in various foreign countries through a well-established business network. 
• The LAZZA brand claimed that they are one of the most popular branches in South India with regard to the mentioned goods and services.
• It was contended that in August 2021, the ice-cream company claimed that its lawyer came across an advertisement in the trademark Journal inviting objections against an application for registration of the trademark ‘HAZZA’. 
• They immediately filed a notice of opposition before the Registrar of Trademarks, Chennai, which remains pending.
• Thereafter, it was noticed by the ice cream company that the appellant had started a restaurant-cum-bakery under the trademark ‘HAZZA’ at Kalamassery in Ernakulam District. 
• The ice cream company filed for an interim injunction against the restaurant brand, which was allowed by the trial court in September 2025. 
• Aggrieved by the same, the appellant company has filed this plea in the Kerala High Court. 

Real likelihood of confusion

• The Kerala High Court noted that the ice-cream brand’s case was not that the marks were identical, but that they were deceptively similar.
• It also took into account that the appellant had opened its restaurant in close proximity to the ice cream company’s establishment and was not operating any other outlet under the same name, leading to a prima facie inference that the adoption of the mark may not be bona fide.
• The court found that there was a real likelihood of consumer confusion or deception, especially given the reputation of the LAZZA brand’s mark.
• The court pointed out that permitting the appellant to continue its business under the said trademark would be against the public interest and granted an interim injunction. 
• The high court pointed out that a likelihood of confusion is sufficient to establish infringement. 
• It was further highlighted by the court that the overall commercial impression is what matters, and engaging in a minute or mechanical comparison is not the right approach. 
• The court has to keep in mind that if the trademarks of the appellant and the LAZZA are compared, the inevitable conclusion is that the trademark of the appellant is deceptively similar to that of the ice cream company.

No monopoly

• The counsel for the appellant, advocate Benoy K Kadavan, submitted that the previous order was passed in violation of the settled principles regarding infringement of trademark. 
• He submitted that the appellant and LAZZA are operating in different fields of service. 
• LAZZA is not operating ordinary restaurants, and since the field of activity of the appellant and the ice cream company is different, there is no scope for any confusion or deception. 
• Kadavan further added that his client is running a restaurant specialising in Malabar and Middle Eastern cuisine. 
• He added that the ice cream company, LAZZA, cannot be permitted to claim any monopoly in the matter of running a restaurant for the reason that it has obtained registration. 
• It was further added that his client’s mark ‘HAZZA Kitchen’ is distinctive, original and honestly adopted. 
• He pointed out that the word ‘HAZZA’ is derived from Arabic and means ‘delight or pleasure’ and is totally different from the trademark of the LAZZA. 
• The visual and conceptual impression given by the trademark HAZZA is not in any way deceptively similar to LAZZA, Kadavan added. 

No explanation for similar marks

• On the contrary, the counsel for the ice cream brand LAZZA, advocate Abraham Cherian, supported the previous interim order and submitted that the trademark LAZZA has been registered for various services and products.
• He further submitted that it is immaterial whether his client is actually running any restaurant or not. 
• It was further submitted that the restaurant, HAZZA, has not given any explanation for adopting the deceptively similar trademark with a closely resembling colour scheme. 
• He argued that the apparent intention is to deceive the customers and to make use of the goodwill of LAZZA.