B. L. Agro Industries Limited Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks

Stay of operation of registration of the mark in Trademark Appeal

Facts  :The appellant, B. L. Agro Industries Limited, is a long-time user and registered proprietor of the trademark "NOURISH" in Class 30, which covers a wide range of food-related products including edible oils, ghee, milk and dairy products, pulses, tea, coffee, flour, confectionery, spices, and other allied goods. The mark "NOURISH" has been in use since 2007, and the appellant holds registrations covering Classes 29, 30, and 31.  

The respondent Urban Exports (P) Ltd. applied for registration of the mark "TeaNOURISH" (stylized) under Application No. 6544100 in Class 30 covering similar goods such as coffee, tea, biscuits, confectionery, spices, and sauces. The respondent claimed user of this mark since December 1, 2020.  

Procedural Detail  :B. L. Agro filed an opposition (Opposition No. 1347124) against the registration of the respondent's mark on the ground that "TeaNOURISH" was deceptively similar to its registered "NOURISH" mark, specifically highlighting that the word "Tea" is descriptive and laudatory, not distinctive on its own. It contended that the exclusive trademark right lies in the word "NOURISH."  

An interim injunction restraining the respondent from using the impugned mark was granted by the Commercial Court, where B. L. Agro also filed a suit (CS(COMM) 910/2024) against the respondent. Given the overlap of issues, the suit was directed to be transferred to the High Court to be heard along with the present appeal.  

Dispute  :The dispute primarily revolves around the similarity and likelihood of confusion between "NOURISH" and "TeaNOURISH" marks, the scope of trademark protection in composite marks, and whether the descriptive word "Tea" can dilute the distinctive character of "NOURISH." The appellant claims prior adoption, use, and registration rights since 2007, whereas the respondent claims usage only from late 2020.  

 Reasoning  :The Court recognized that B. L. Agro is the prior adopter and registered proprietor of the trademark "NOURISH" widely used for a broad variety of food products starting 2007. The impugned mark "TeaNOURISH" overlaps in class and nature of goods leading to a high likelihood of confusion in trade channels and among consumers.  

The Court noted that the addition of the word "Tea" (which is laudatory and descriptive) does not create material distinction because it merely describes some characteristic of the goods and is not a distinctive element. Therefore, the dominant and registrable feature of the respondent’s mark is "NOURISH," which is identical to the appellant’s mark.  

It was held that under Section 9(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, if two marks are identical or deceptively similar and used for similar or allied goods or services, the later mark should be refused registration to prevent confusion among consumers. The suit's interim injunction demonstrates the prima facie case of deception and irreparable injury to the appellant.  

The Court directed that the registration of the respondent's mark "TeaNOURISH" granted by the Registrar of Trade Marks be stayed during the pendency of this appeal and suit. This preserves the balance of rights pending final adjudication.  

Decision  :The Court issued notice to the respondents and stayed the operation of registration of the mark "TeaNOURISH" pending disposal of the appeal and the transferred suit. 

Case Title: B. L. Agro Industries Limited Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks & Another  

Order Date: September 24, 2025  

Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 65/2025  

Name of Court: High Court of Delhi  

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia  

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  

Pushpdeep Cotex Private Limited Vs Anoop Agarwal

Role of Artistic Labels and Color Combinations in Trademark Disputes

Facts:In this case, Pushpdeep Cotex Private Limited, the petitioner, filed a rectification petition under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking cancellation of trade mark registration no. 5925080. This registration covered a label device granted to respondent Anoop Agarwal on May 6, 2023, in Class 26, which pertains to textile goods like saree falls. 

The petitioner claimed it had been using the trademarks “Rani” and “Rachna” on saree falls and blouse textile pieces for many years, with the earliest trademark “Rani” registered since May 16, 2000. The petitioner presented evidence showing continuous and extensive use of these marks and their artistic labels since 2007. It also produced artistic receipts, newspaper advertising, and a caution notice issued in 2021 well before the respondent’s adoption of the impugned mark.

Procedural Detail:The respondent, Anoop Agarwal, countered the petition by stating that his label “Ragini Smile Polyester Saree Fall” was adopted in February 2022 for honest and bona fide reasons and that the trademark application was granted without any objection from the Trade Mark Registry. The respondent claimed that the mark “Ragini” was distinct from “Rani” and “Rachna,” both phonetically, visually, and conceptually, and that there was no risk of confusion to the public. Proceeding further, the High Court heard arguments from both sides, reviewed evidence placed by the petitioner, and considered the respondent’s defenses.

Dispute:The central dispute revolved around whether the impugned label registered by the respondent was deceptively or confusingly similar to the petitioner’s earlier registered marks and their associated artistic presentation. The matter called for a determination of prior and continuous use, the strength and originality of the petitioner’s artistic labels, and the risk of confusion among the consumers due to similarities in the marks and trade getup.

Reasoning:The High Court thoroughly examined the evidence and noted very strong visual and conceptual similarities between the petitioner’s and respondent’s labels. The petitioner’s label for “Rani” was artistically styled, and the same font, design, color scheme (yellow and red), tagline layout (“Smile Polyester Saree Fall” and “A Quality Product From The House Of …”), and imagery were all replicated in the respondent’s “Ragini” label. The only significant difference was the names “Rani” and “Ragini.” The Court found that even this difference lost importance because both were written in an identical style and lettering, leaving an overall impression of near identity between the labels.

The High Court relied on the benchmark judgment Colgate Palmolive Co. v. Anchor Health and Beauty Care P Ltd. [2003 SCC OnLine Del 1005], which observed that substantial imitation of color combination and get-up of a container can itself cause deception—even if the trade names differ. The test is the likelihood of confusion or deceptiveness in the minds of unwary customers.

The Court also emphasized that distinctive color combinations and artistic styles could serve as trade marks, protected not only against direct copying but also against substantial and conscious imitation. It found the petitioner had shown prior and wide use of its label since 2007, with the 2021 caution notice predating the respondent’s adoption in 2023.

Further, the Court applied the principle that rights of a prior user override registration by a subsequent user. Citing S. Syed Mohideen v. P. Sulochana Bai [2016 2 SCC 683], the Court reiterated that rights of prior use always prevail over later registrants. This was further supported by reference to Neon Laboratories Ltd. v. Medical Technologies Ltd. [2016 2 SCC 672] and N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corp. [1996 5 SCC 714], noting that prior use involving generation of goodwill and reputation outscores statutory registration.

The respondent’s defense of honest adoption and absence of registry objection was not accepted because the similarities were overwhelming and the evidence for prior use by the petitioner was clear. The Court concluded that the respondent was a subsequent user and the adoption of the mark was both dishonest and in bad faith.

Decision:Accordingly, the High Court ordered cancellation of respondent’s trademark registration no. 5925080 under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Registrar of Trade Marks was directed to rectify and remove the impugned trademark from the Register within four weeks. The petition and related applications were disposed of, affirming the legal position that the rights of a prior user, backed by substantial evidence of continuous use, trump a later registration even if the registry was not objected to initially.

Case Title: Pushpdeep Cotex Private Limited Vs Anoop Agarwal & Another

Order Date: September 24, 2025

Case Number: C.O. COMM.IPD-TM 108/2025

Name of Court: High Court of Delhi

Name of Hon’ble Judge: Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

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

Gopika Industries Vs Dayal Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Prima Facie Plea of Invalidity of registered Trademark

Facts of the Case:The lawsuit was initiated by Gopika Industries, which claimed infringement of its registered trademark DYAL, used for cattle feed and registered since April 4, 1996 under Trade Mark No. 709502 in Class 31. Gopika Industries had records showing use of the DYAL mark both in English and regional languages. The defendant, Dayal Industries Pvt. Ltd., is also in the business of manufacturing and selling cattle feed and holds its trademark DAYAL (Trade Mark No. 923948) registered on May 10, 2000 in Class 31. Both parties claimed to use their respective marks for similar goods and in similar languages.

Procedural Detail:Dayal Industries filed an application seeking court permission to initiate rectification proceedings against Gopika Industries' registered trademark. In its written statement defending the application, Dayal Industries raised several pleas to challenge the validity of the DYAL mark. These included claims that Dayal Industries was the prior user of the mark DAYAL for cattle feed products since 2000, while the earliest invoice of plaintiff Gopika Industries was from 2001. 

The defendant claimed further rights through its own group company Dayal Fertilizers Pvt. Ltd., which used the mark DAYAL in allied products as early as 1979. The defendant also asserted that the plaintiff was misusing the goodwill of the DAYAL mark to confuse consumers and pass off its products as those of Dayal Industries. Meanwhile, the group company Dayal Fertilizers Pvt. Ltd. had already filed a separate commercial suit against Gopika Industries regarding trademark issues.

Dispute:The core dispute was whether Gopika Industries' registration of DYAL in 1996 gave it superior rights, even if contemporaneous commercial use commenced later (2001), and if Dayal Industries could challenge this registration based on alleged prior use or invalidity. The defendant argued that mere registration did not suffice to claim rights if commercial use was delayed, and invoked grounds such as prior use by their company or affiliated group companies, as well as visual and phonetic similarity of the marks DYAL and DAYAL. The plaintiff countered by relying on statutory provisions and judicial precedents that clarified the status of rights derived from statutory registration of trademarks.

Reasoning :The Court examined arguments from both sides, referring to the Trade Marks Act, 1999, especially Section 34, which deals with infringement protection based on prior use, and Section 18 regarding registration based on actual or proposed use. The defendant contended, relying on Section 34, that the plaintiff was barred from claiming rights based on mere registration, if actual use began after the defendant's usage. 

However, the court referred to the precedent set in Worknest Business Centre LLP v. Worknests through SH Raesh Goyal [2023 SCC OnLine Del 1678]. This landmark judgment clarified that the relevant date for establishing trademark ownership and prior use is the date of registration application, not actual commercial use. 

The law creates a presumption of validity and proprietary ownership for registered marks, irrespective of when commercial use begins, provided the proprietor demonstrates steps towards using the mark—which Gopika Industries did through documentary evidence and correspondence with authorities between 1996 and 1999.

The defendant's argument about prior use through Dayal Fertilizers Pvt. Ltd. was dismissed by the court because its trademark application (TM No. 923948 for cattle feed) only claimed user from May 2000 onward, not from 1979. Furthermore, Dayal Fertilizers Pvt. Ltd. was not selling cattle feed under the DAYAL mark, so its use in allied products (fertilizers) was held irrelevant to the present dispute.

The court cited two further judgments:

- Patel Field Marshal Agencies v. P.M. Diesels Ltd. [2018 2 SCC 112]

- Amrish Aggarwal Trading as Ms. Mahalaxmi Product v. Venus Home Appliances Pvt. Ltd. [2024 SCC OnLine Del 3652] 

Both judgments reconfirmed that the statutory presumption linked to registered marks stands unless clear, continuous prior use in the precise category of goods is established. The court found no adequate demonstration by the defendant of usage of DAYAL for cattle feed before April 4, 1996—the plaintiff's date of registration application—which under law is regarded as the decisive cut-off for prior use.

Decision:The Hon'ble High Court rejected the defendant's request to initiate rectification proceedings against Gopika Industries' trademark and dismissed the plea of invalidity. The application did not raise a triable issue affecting the registered mark DYAL held by Gopika Industries for cattle feed. The court clarified that its observations did not impact separate pending petitions between the parties or Dayal Fertilizers Pvt. Ltd., which would be decided independently. The suit remains listed for further trial on connected matters.

Case Title: Gopika Industries Vs Dayal Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Order Date: September 26, 2025

Case Number: CSCOMM 700/2017

Name of Court: High Court of Delhi

Name of Judge: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

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