The Madras High Court declined to grant interim relief sought by Origin Nutrition Private Limited in its trademark dispute against Tech7 Phyll Private Limited and another respondent, where the plaintiff sought to restrain the use of the trademark “ORIGIN FRESH.” Origin Nutrition, a company that manufactures vegan protein and nutrition products, filed a suit claiming infringement and passing off, arguing that its registered rights in the marks “ORIGIN” and “ORIGIN NUTRITION” under Class 5 gave it exclusive entitlement to prevent others from using similar marks, including “ORIGIN FRESH,” on the basis that such use would dilute its goodwill and cause confusion among consumers. The suit was instituted in the commercial division of the Madras High Court, and Origin Nutrition moved for an interim injunction to restrain the defendants from using “ORIGIN FRESH” in relation to fresh fruits and vegetables. The plaintiff’s case was premised on its ownership of registered trademarks for products that included nutritional supplements and related goods, and it was asserted that the defendants’ use of a mark containing the word “ORIGIN” infringed its rights under trademark law and amounted to passing off its goods as those of Origin Nutrition.
Tech7 Phyll, the defendant, opposed the injunction application on the grounds that “ORIGIN” was a common and generic word that could not be monopolised by any single entity, and that its use of “ORIGIN FRESH” in connection with fresh fruits and vegetables was distinct in nature from the goods marketed by Origin Nutrition. The defendants pointed out that Tech7 Phyll held a registered device mark “ORIGIN” in Class 31, which covered agricultural products including fresh fruits and vegetables, establishing that its use of the term was legitimate within its own class of goods. It was contended that there was a clear demarcation between the classes of products covered by the respective trademarks and that there was no overlap in the nature of goods, the trade channels through which they were sold, or the target consumers. According to the defence, these distinctions negated any prima facie case of infringement or passing off. The defendants argued that even if a common word appeared in both marks, trademark law did not confer exclusive rights over generic terms and required assessment of the mark as a whole rather than focusing on individual components. They maintained that the marks, when seen in their entirety, were not deceptively similar and that consumers would not be confused between products such as packaged vegan nutrition supplements and fresh fruits and vegetables sold under different business models.
The High Court, presided over by Justice N Senthilkumar, examined the submissions and observed that “ORIGIN” was indeed a common dictionary word and could not be subject to an exclusive trademark right to the extent claimed by Origin Nutrition. The bench took note of the practical differences between the goods sold by the parties. It observed that Origin Nutrition’s products, which included vegan protein and nutrition items packaged in sealed containers, catered to a consumer base distinct from those purchasing fresh produce such as fruits and vegetables from outlets operated by Tech7 Phyll under the “ORIGIN FRESH” brand. The court emphasised that the fundamental test for trademark infringement and passing off required analysing whether the marks, taken as a whole, were deceptively similar and likely to cause confusion among consumers. Given the differences in product categories and customer perception, the court concluded that there was no likelihood of confusion in the present case. It further noted that trademarks must be assessed in totality rather than dissecting individual elements and that the mere presence of a common word, especially one that was generic in nature, did not justify granting an injunction.
In addressing the legal standards for granting interim injunctions in trademark disputes, the court underscored that a plaintiff must demonstrate a prima facie case, balance of convenience in its favour, and the prospect of irreparable harm if injunctive relief was denied. The bench determined that Origin Nutrition had failed to meet these criteria, as the differences in classes of goods and the non-overlapping nature of the trade channels weighed against a finding of likelihood of confusion. It also highlighted precedent emphasizing that a trademark proprietor cannot enjoy monopoly rights over a generic term across unrelated classes of goods, especially where the marks serve distinct commercial purposes and consumer groups. In reaching its conclusion, the court referred to established principles regarding the evaluation of trademark similarity, including the overarching requirement that trademarks be examined holistically rather than focusing narrowly on individual shared words or components.
Consequently, the High Court dismissed Origin Nutrition’s application for interim injunction, finding that the plaintiff had not demonstrated sufficient grounds for restraining the defendants from using “ORIGIN FRESH” in connection with their sale of fruits and vegetables. The decision reaffirmed that ownership of a trademark in one class of goods does not automatically confer rights to prevent use of similar terms in entirely different classes, particularly where the marks are not likely to cause consumer confusion. The court’s refusal to grant preliminary relief left the suit to proceed on its merits without imposing interim restrictions on the defendants’ use of their mark. This order highlighted the judiciary’s careful application of trademark law principles in distinguishing between generic and distinctive elements of marks and in assessing the potential for confusion among differing product markets. The dispute remained pending for further adjudication on the substantive merits of the plaintiff’s claims, with the interim relief having been denied on the basis that the legal threshold for such relief was not met by Origin Nutrition’s case.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.