Eternal (Zomato) vs Eternl Resilienttech — Karnataka HC Upholds Injunction Against Rebranded Zomato

Case Background — The Corporate Rebrand

When Zomato Limited, one of India's most recognisable food technology brands, rebranded itself as Eternal Limited in 2026, it walked straight into an existing trademark dispute. A Bengaluru-based company called Eternl Resilienttech Private Limited had already held registered trademark rights over a phonetically identical mark since 2018 — and moved swiftly to protect those rights in court.

The resulting case — decided by the Karnataka High Court in July 2026 — is a landmark lesson for every company contemplating a corporate rebrand without conducting a comprehensive pre-rebrand trademark clearance search.

The Two Parties

• Eternal Limited (formerly Zomato)India's leading food delivery and quick commerce platform, which rebranded from Zomato Limited to Eternal Limited — obtaining its ETERNAL trademark registration only in March 2022
• Eternl Resilienttech Pvt. Ltd.A Bengaluru-based technology company incorporated in 2013, with its ETERNL trademark registered since March 2018 — four years before Eternal Limited's registration

The core dispute turned on a single critical fact: Eternl Resilienttech's registration pre-dated Eternal Limited's registration by four years — establishing clear prior rights in favour of the smaller company over the rebranded tech giant.

Trial Court's Ex-Parte Order

On 8 June 2026, the trial court granted an ad-interim ex-parte injunction restraining Eternal Limited from using the ETERNAL mark across its website, digital platforms, applications and stock exchange filings, in relation to services similar to those offered by Eternl Resilienttech.

The restraint was sweeping — covering not just product branding but also the company's digital presence and even its regulatory and stock exchange communications using the "Eternal" name in connection with similar services.

Karnataka High Court's Ruling

Eternal Limited challenged the trial court's order before the Karnataka High Court. Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar dismissed the appeal, making several important observations:

• Reasons are sufficientThe trial court had recorded adequate reasons for granting the ex-parte injunction — considering the plaintiff's registration date, comparing the phonetics of both marks, and observing that only the letter 'a' differed between ETERNL and ETERNAL
• Quantum of reasons irrelevantThe High Court held that the sufficiency or insufficiency of reasons is not a valid ground to challenge an ad-interim ex-parte injunction in appeal — the appropriate remedy is an application before the trial court
• Proper remedy is trial courtThe Court ruled that Eternal Limited should approach the trial court with an application to discharge or modify the injunction — not file a direct appeal to the High Court at this stage
• Injunction confined to similar servicesThe court clarified that the injunction applied only to services similar to Eternl Resilienttech's business, and Eternal Limited could continue its other business operations

The trial court was directed to dispose of any application filed by Eternal Limited within four weeks.

Phonetic Similarity — The Critical Issue

At the heart of this dispute is the doctrine of phonetic similarity — one of the most important and often underestimated aspects of trademark law.

The trial court noted that the phonetics of both ETERNL and ETERNAL "are one and the same and only the alphabet 'a' is different in between these two words." When spoken aloud, both marks are virtually indistinguishable — a consumer hearing either mark would perceive them as identical.

This case powerfully illustrates why phonetic similarity searches are essential before adopting any trademark — particularly for corporate names that will be used across digital platforms, customer communications and regulatory filings. A mark that looks different on paper may sound identical in commerce.

Trademark Lessons from Corporate Rebranding

• Conduct trademark clearance before rebrandingBefore committing to a new corporate name, conduct a comprehensive trademark search — wordmark, phonetic, device — in all relevant classes across all five Trade Marks Offices
• Phonetic search is non-negotiableETERNAL and ETERNL look different but sound identical. Always include a phonetic similarity search in pre-rebrand clearance — what the eye distinguishes, the ear may not
• Check existing registrations in your sectorEternl Resilienttech held a 2018 registration — prior to Zomato's 2022 registration. A basic search would have identified this conflict before any investment in the Eternal brand
• Ex-parte injunctions can restrain corporate operations immediatelyThe injunction in this case extended to stock exchange filings and digital platforms — a corporate rebrand without clearance can trigger injunctions that disrupt core business operations
• Prior registration trumps brand recognitionEternl Resilienttech is a far smaller company than Zomato — but it held a prior registration. In trademark law, prior registration creates presumptive rights regardless of the other party's commercial size or recognition

Why Choose Adv. Nikhil Soni & Co.?

• Personal handling by senior advocateAdv. Nikhil Soni personally handles every trademark clearance and filing — clients deal directly with the advocate, not junior staff
• 23+ years, 5000+ trademarksExclusive IP practice since 2001 — trademark, patent, copyright, design and trade secret
• All India coverageAuthorised to appear before all five Trade Marks Offices and IP Courts across India
• End-to-end serviceSearch, filing, objection reply, enforcement and litigation — complete IP lifecycle management

Frequently Asked Questions