Madan Lal Purushottam Das Foods Private Limited Vs B. L. Agro Industries

Composite marks, common to trade, and consumer wonderment

Facts:This case arises from a trademark dispute in the edible oil market between B. L. Agro Industries Limited, proprietor of the registered mark “BAIL KOLHU” (word and device), and Madan Lal Purushottam Das Foods Private Limited, which began using the mark “AROHUL KOHLU” with a device featuring an ox tethered to a grinder, for similar goods including edible oils, ghee, fats and allied products, as alleged by the respondent B. L. Agro in the suit below. 

B. L. Agro claims long-standing adoption of the “BAIL KOLHU” mark since 1 January 1986, registrations for the word and device in Class 29 (including edible oils, ghee, fats, dairy products) and other classes, and copyright registrations for the device from 1999, with continuous and extensive use leading to substantial goodwill and turnover growth over the years. 

The appellant had attempted to register similar device marks on a “proposed to be used” basis in 2022 and 2023, but both applications were abandoned by the Registrar of Trade Marks in December 2023 and July 2024 respectively, leaving the appellant without any registration, while the respondent continued to own valid registrations over the BAIL KOLHU word and device marks. 

The respondent alleges that in July 2025 it discovered the appellant’s products on online platforms using “AROHUL KOHLU” with an ox-and-grinder device similar to the respondent’s device for identical goods, likely to confuse consumers and amounting to infringement and passing off, prompting the suit seeking permanent injunction and interim relief.

Procedural detail:In CS (COMM) 464/2025 before the Commercial Court, Shahdara, B. L. Agro sought an ex parte ad interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC to restrain use of the impugned mark and device by the appellant and also sought appointment of a Local Commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC to visit the appellant’s premises and seize or inventorize allegedly infringing goods . 

By order dated 4 August 2025, the Commercial Court granted ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the appellant, recorded prima facie infringement of the registered “BAIL KOLHU” trade name/device by deceptive similarity and phonetic similarity, and appointed a Local Commissioner to inventorize and seize goods, with reliance on Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v Kartick Das, and Delhi High Court orders in Munish Kumar Singla Trading v Jollibee Foods Corporation and Devagiri Farms Pvt Ltd v Sanjay Kapur, and fixed the matter for further hearing on 20 September 2025 . 

Aggrieved, the appellant preferred FAO (COMM) 234/2025 before the Delhi High Court under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act read with Order XLIII CPC, challenging the ex parte interim order, and argued for interference by the appellate court rather than remand for an uninfluenced decision by the Commercial Court; upon suggestion by the Bench to allow the trial court to decide the interim application uninfluenced, the appellant declined and pressed the appeal on merits, leading to a detailed appellate analysis within the limited constraints on appellate interference with discretionary interim orders.

Dispute:The core dispute is whether the appellant’s use of “AROHUL KOHLU” with an ox-and-grinder device for edible oils infringes the respondent’s registered “BAIL KOLHU” marks and device under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, by causing likelihood of confusion or association in the mind of an average consumer of ordinary intelligence and imperfect recollection, and whether interim injunctive relief and appointment of a Local Commissioner were justified at the ex parte stage. 

The appellant argued that “Kolhu” is publici juris describing a traditional wood-press process for extracting mustard oil; that the respondent conceded no objection to use of the words per se; that the ox-with-grinder motif is common to the trade and non-distinctive with numerous similar registrations since 1973; that the respondent does not own a separate registration for the device per se and cannot dissect a composite mark under the anti-dissection rule in Section 17; that the device is descriptive and thus protected by Section 30(2)(a); and that when compared as whole marks “BAIL KOLHU” and “AROHUL KOHLU” are dissimilar and not likely to confuse. 

The respondent maintained status as registered proprietor since 2001 for the device and since at least 2006 and 2016 for the word in Class 29, showing long and extensive use, and argued that the overall impression of the rival marks, including the ox-with-grinder dominant feature and phonetic/visual similarity in the words, creates at least likelihood of association sufficient to find infringement at the interim stage, warranting protection of statutory rights.

Detailed reasoning :The High Court began by reaffirming the settled test that likelihood of confusion is examined from the standpoint of an average consumer of ordinary intelligence and imperfect recollection, and that marks are compared as wholes, not by placing them side by side for a meticulous comparison, consistent with Pernod Ricard v Karanveer Singh Chhabra, Khoday Distilleries Ltd v Scotch Whisky Association, and Parle Products v J.P. Co., as well as the classical position in Amritdhara Pharmacy v Satya Deo Gupta and Cadila Healthcare v Cadila Pharmaceuticals.

The Court emphasized that infringement under Section 29(2) is made out not only when a consumer confuses one mark for another, but also where, owing to similarity of marks and goods, the consumer is likely to believe there is an association between them; thus even a momentary state of wonderment about connection suffices to establish likelihood of confusion at the initial interest stage, which is enough at the interim level without proof of actual confusion . 

Applying this to the rival signs, the Court held that a consumer who had seen the respondent’s “BAIL KOLHU” device mark would, upon encountering the appellant’s “AROHUL KOHLU” with an ox-and-grinder motif for identical goods, at least wonder about an association, given the shared pictorial theme and overlap in the word elements “KOLHU/KOHLU,” which meets the Section 29(2) threshold for likelihood of confusion or association.

On the anti-dissection rule and Section 17, the Court recognized that composite marks must be considered as a whole, but courts may identify dominant or essential features within a composite mark for assessing confusion, as explained by the Supreme Court in Pernod Ricard; it concluded that, in consumer perception, the ox tethered to the grinder is the dominant or at least co-dominant feature of B. L. Agro’s device, which impresses the average consumer more immediately than the words, making replication of that motif a strong indicator of infringement even if the word elements differ. 

Drawing on South India Beverages Pvt Ltd v General Mills Marketing Inc., the Court observed that where both components are equally prominent, both deserve protection; hence, copying the ox-with-grinder motif, which is at least as dominant as the words, would justify injunctive relief, and this approach remains consistent with the anti-dissection principle because the overall commercial impression remains the focus. 

The Court also employed the concept of idea infringement, holding that appropriation of the dominant idea of the registered device—the ox tethered to a grinding machine for mustard oil—by the appellant constitutes infringement because similarity under Section 29(2) includes similarity of the idea conveyed by the marks, especially where that idea anchors consumer association with the registered mark [1].

Regarding the plea that the ox-and-grinder motif is common to the trade and thus unprotectable under Section 17(2), the Court held that merely producing screenshots of several registrations with similar motifs is insufficient; to invoke “common to the trade,” the defendant must show actual market usage in the same trade with material indicating substantial turnover or threat to the distinctiveness of the plaintiff’s mark, as elucidated by Pankaj Goel v Dabur India Ltd and Express Bottlers v Pepsi Inc.; since there was no empirical data on actual usage or market impact in the mustard oil trade, the defence failed at the interim stage. 

The Court further clarified that a trademark proprietor is not obliged to sue every small infringer and may prioritize enforcement; therefore, existence of other potential infringers does not defeat the claim against a particular infringer, per Pankaj Goel and National Bell v Metal Goods. 

The Court also rejected the contention that the device lacks distinctiveness or is descriptive, noting that distinctiveness is a fact-sensitive issue generally requiring evidence and trial, and that the registered status under Section 31 provides prima facie evidence of validity; moreover, Section 30(2)(a) was inapplicable because the ox-with-grinder image does not indicate kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, time of production, or other characteristics—at best it is suggestive of a process, and suggestive marks are protectable, as explained in T. V. Venugopal v Ushodaya Enterprises.

The Court refused to be swayed by differences in packaging or get-up because an infringement analysis is mark-to-mark, not a passing off inquiry; the Supreme Court’s distinction in Kaviraj Durgadutt Sharma v Navratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories was relied on to stress that added matter on packaging cannot cure infringement where the essential features of the registered mark have been adopted by the defendant. 

On appellate interference, the Bench reminded that appeals against discretionary interim orders are governed by the limits set in Wander Ltd v Antox India, and within those parameters there was no case to upset the Commercial Court’s ex parte injunction and appointment of Local Commissioner, particularly after the appellant elected not to accept a remand to have the Order XXXIX application decided uninfluenced on the next date.

Judgment and decision:The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal under the limited appellate standard applicable to interim orders, thereby affirming the Commercial Court’s ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the appellant from using the impugned mark and device. 

Case Title: Madan Lal Purushottam Das Foods Private Limited Vs B. L. Agro Industries Limited  

Order Date: 28 August 2025  

Case Number: FAO (COMM) 234/2025 

Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:7772-DB

Name of Court: High Court of Delhi 

Name of Hon'ble Judges: Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash Shukla 

Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi