Delhi High Court - Orders
B. L. Agro Industries Limited vs The Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr on 24 September, 2025
$~37
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 65/2025
B. L. AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Rajesh Sharma and Mr.
Shailender Kumar, Advocates.
versus
THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Jayant Kumar, Advocate for R2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
ORDER
% 24.09.2025
I.A. 24035/2025(Exemption)
1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The Application stands disposed of.
C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 65/2025
3. This is an Appeal under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 ("Act") challenging the order dated 19.08.2025 ("Impugned Order") passed by Respondent No. 1 in Opposition No. 1347124 filed by the Appellant against Application No. 6544100 in Class 30 of Respondent No. 2 for the Trade Mark, 'TeaNOURISH' / ' ' ("Impugned Mark") C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 65/2025 Page 1 of 6 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/09/2025 at 21:27:19
4. Issue Notice. The learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 accepts Notice.
5. Let the Notice be served to Respondent No. 1 through all permissible modes upon filing of the Process Fees.
6. Let the Reply be filed within a period of four weeks. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within a period of two weeks thereafter.
7. The learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellant has filed CS(COMM) 910/2024 ("Suit") against Respondent No. 2 herein, before the District Judge (Commercial Court)-02, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi ("Commercial Court"). It is further submitted that the Suit is at the final hearing stage and the next date of hearing is on 15.10.2025.
8. Given that the present Appeal and the Suit are in relation to the same Trade Mark, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings relating to the same subject matter, the Suit is directed to be transferred from the learned Commerical Court to this Court under Rule 26 of the Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Division Rules, 2022 read with Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC").
9. The Suit upon its transfer, will be re-numbered, listed along with this Appeal on 23.01.2026.
I.A. 24034/202510. This is an Application filed by the Appellant under Section 151 of the CPC for the stay of the operation of registration of the Impugned Mark granted to Respondent No. 2 under Application No. 6544100 in Class 30 by Respondent No. 1 vide the Impugned Order.
11. Issue Notice to Respondent No. 2. The learned Counsel for C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 65/2025 Page 2 of 6 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/09/2025 at 21:27:19 Respondent No. 2 accepts Notice.
12. The learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that:
12.1 The Appellant is the prior adopter, user, and registered proprietor of the Trade Mark 'NOURISH' in Class 30 ("Subject Mark"). The Appellant is engaged in the business of a vast range of products including edible oils, ghee, fats, milk products, dairy products, dried and cooked fruits and vegetables, scanned, processed and dried pulses, coffee, tea, cocoa, sugar, rice, pulses, tapioca, sago, flour and preparations made from cereals, bread, pastry, confectionery, ices, honey, treacle, yeast, baking powder, salt, mustard, vinegar, sauces (condiments), namkeens, sweets, spices, biscuits, cakes, candy, chocolate, condiments, pepper, popcorn, pizza, macaroni, pasta, com flakes, makbana, ready to eat snacks, mangodi, atta, maida, besan, sooji, dalia, seeds, edible flaxseed (un-processed), flaxseed for animal consumption and flaxseed meal for animal consumption etc. under the Mark 'NOURISH' and is registered proprietor thereof in Classes 29, 30 and 31 under the Act, having its roots tracing back to the year 2007.
12.2 Respondent No. 2, Urban Exports (P) Ltd. applied for registration of the Impugned Mark in relation to goods being coffee, tea, cocoa and substitutes therefor, rice, pasta and noodles, tapioca and sago, flour and preparations made from cereals, bread, pastries and confectionery, chocolate, ice cream, sorbets and other edible ices, sugar, honey, treacle, yeast, baking powder, salt, seasonings, spices, preserved herbs, vinegar, sauces and other condiments, claiming user since 01.12.2020.C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 65/2025 Page 3 of 6
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/09/2025 at 21:27:19 12.3 The Appellant, being the prior adopter, user, and registered proprietor of the Subject Mark, filed an opposition against application for the registration of the Impugned Mark bearing Opposition No. 1347124 and under Section 9(1)(b) of the Act on the ground that the Impugned Mark is either identical or deceptively similar to the Subject Mark under multiple applications and the word 'TEA' is itself laudatory in nature and further descriptive of the characteristics and quality of the goods under the Impugned Mark, and, thus, is not a Trade Mark feature of the Impugned Mark. The only Trade Mark feature of the Impugned Mark is the word 'NOURISH'.
12.4 It was also pointed out to Respondent No. 1 that the Suit was pending before the Commercial Court and the vide orders dated 21.11.2024 and 22.03.2025, the learned Commercial Court has granted interim injunction in favour of the Appellant restraining Respondent No. 2 from using the Impugned Mark ("Interim Injunction"). 12.5 However, the Respondent No. 1 failed to take into consideration the arguments advanced by the Appellant. The Impugned Order does not even record the submissions made before Respondent No. 1 regarding pendency of the Suit and Interim Injunction.
12.6 The Impugned Order further failed to appreciate that the goods covered under the Impugned Mark fall within the same class i.e., Class 30, as those of the Appellant and are allied, cognate, and complementary in nature and on account of the overlapping trade channels and consumers, the likelihood of confusion amongst the consumers and members of trade is irrefutable.
13. The learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 submitted that:
C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 65/2025 Page 4 of 6This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/09/2025 at 21:27:19 13.1 The Appellant does not possess any Trade Mark Registration in Class 30 for the Word Mark 'NOURISH', which only forms part of a Label Mark. Since the Appellant has relied upon are Label Marks, the comparison is required to be made between the composite Marks as a whole.
13.2 It is a settled principle that a Mark cannot be dissected to exclude its artistic features, as such features constitute an integral part of the Mark. By electing to file for registration of a Label Mark, the Appellant has, therefore, asserted rights in the composite label in its entirety, and not in the word 'NOURISH' per se.
13.3 Had the registration of a Label Mark, by itself, conferred exclusive rights in the word 'NOURISH', there would have been no occasion or necessity for the Appellant to file a separate Trade Mark Application in respect of the Word Mark 'NOURISH'.
14. In the present case, the Appellant has raised substantial challenges to the Impugned Order, inter alia, on the ground that the Impugned Mark is of deceptive similarity to the Subject Mark. The Impugned Mark falls within Class 30 same as those of the Appellant, and on account of overlapping trade channels and consumer base, there exists an irrefutable likelihood of confusion.
15. The learned Commercial Court has already granted Interim Injunction restraining Respondent No. 2 from using the Impugned Mark, which is operative since 21.11.2024. The Suit has already been directed to be transferred before this Court. The Appellant, being the registered proprietor of the Subject Mark with user rights dating back to 2007, has established prior use, adoption and registration over Respondent No. 2, who claims use C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 65/2025 Page 5 of 6 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/09/2025 at 21:27:19 only since 01.12.2020. The Impugned Mark is deceptively similar to the Appellant's Subject Mark, as the word 'TEA' is merely descriptive and complimentary in nature, making 'NOURISH' the sole distinctive Trade Mark feature. This is a case of triple identity where the Marks are identical, the product category is identical and the trade channel as also the consumer base is identical.
16. Accordingly, allowing the registration of the Impugned Mark under Application No. 6544100 to operate during the pendency of this Appeal and the Suit could potentially disturb the balance of rights between the Parties.
17. For the reasons stated above, the operation and implementation of the Impugned Order dated 19.08.2025 and consequent registration of the Impugned Mark, 'TeaNOURISH' / ' ' under Application No. 6544100 in Class 30 in the Register of Trade Marks shall remain stayed till the final disposal of this Appeal.
18. This Application stands disposed of.
TEJAS KARIA, J SEPTEMBER 24, 2025/sms C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 65/2025 Page 6 of 6 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/09/2025 at 21:27:19