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
