Composite Marks, Common To Trade, And Consumer Wonderment

Facts Of The Case: Delhi High Court Trademark Case: B.L. Agro Industries Vs Madan Lal Purushottam Das Foods | Bail Kolhu Trademark Dispute

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.

Trademark Ownership And History

• B. L. Agro claims adoption of “BAIL KOLHU” since 1 January 1986.
• Registered for word and device marks in Class 29 (edible oils, ghee, fats, dairy products) and other classes.
• Copyright registrations for the device since 1999.
• Continuous and extensive use leading to substantial goodwill and turnover growth.

Trademark Registration Status

The appellant 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. The respondent continued to own valid registrations for the “BAIL KOLHU” word and device marks.

Discovery Of Alleged Infringement

In July 2025, the respondent discovered the appellant’s products on online platforms using “AROHUL KOHLU” with an ox-and-grinder device similar to the respondent’s mark. Alleging consumer confusion, the respondent filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction and interim relief.

Procedural Details

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.
• Appointment of a Local Commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC to visit the appellant’s premises and seize/inventorize infringing goods.

Commercial Court Order

By order dated 4 August 2025, the Commercial Court:

• Granted ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the appellant.
• Recorded prima facie infringement of the “BAIL KOLHU” trademark by deceptive and phonetic similarity.
• Appointed a Local Commissioner to seize and inventorize goods.
• Relied on precedents: Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das, Munish Kumar Singla Trading v. Jollibee Foods Corporation, and Devagiri Farms Pvt Ltd v. Sanjay Kapur.
• Fixed the next hearing for 20 September 2025.

Appeal Before Delhi High Court

The appellant filed 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. The Bench suggested allowing the Commercial Court to decide the interim application uninfluenced, but the appellant pressed the appeal on merits, prompting detailed appellate analysis within the narrow scope of interim appellate interference.

Core Legal Dispute

The main issue was whether the appellant’s use of “AROHUL KOHLU” with an ox-and-grinder device infringed the respondent’s registered “BAIL KOLHU” marks under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 by causing likelihood of confusion or association among average consumers.

Appellant’s Arguments

• “Kolhu” is a public term describing traditional wood-press extraction of mustard oil.
• The ox-with-grinder motif is common in trade and non-distinctive.
• “BAIL KOLHU” and “AROHUL KOHLU” are dissimilar as whole marks.
• The respondent cannot dissect a composite mark (anti-dissection rule, Section 17).
• The device is descriptive and protected by Section 30(2)(a).

Respondent’s Arguments

• Registered proprietor since 2001 (device) and 2006/2016 (word mark) in Class 29.
• Extensive market use creating strong consumer association.
• Overall visual and phonetic similarity likely to confuse consumers.
• Statutory rights warrant protection through interim injunction.

Detailed Reasoning By The High Court

Test For Likelihood Of Confusion

The Court reaffirmed that the test is from the perspective of an average consumer of ordinary intelligence and imperfect recollection. Marks are compared as wholes, consistent with:

• Pernod Ricard v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra
• Khoday Distilleries Ltd v. Scotch Whisky Association
• Parle Products v. J.P. Co.
• Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satya Deo Gupta
• Cadila Healthcare v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals

Likelihood Of Association

Infringement under Section 29(2) occurs even where a consumer might believe the marks are connected. Momentary association or “initial interest confusion” suffices for interim relief.

Idea Infringement And Device Similarity

The Court held that appropriation of the dominant idea—the ox tethered to a grinding machine—constitutes infringement. Similarity includes similarity of the idea conveyed by the marks.

Common To The Trade Defense

The appellant’s “common to trade” defense failed for lack of market usage evidence. Cited cases:

• Pankaj Goel v. Dabur India Ltd
• Express Bottlers v. Pepsi Inc.

The Court emphasized that producing registrations alone is insufficient; proof of actual market use is required.

Distinctiveness And Validity

Registered trademarks enjoy presumption of validity under Section 31. The ox-with-grinder image was held to be suggestive, not descriptive, and thus protectable. Reference: T.V. Venugopal v. Ushodaya Enterprises.

Appellate Interference Standard

Following Wander Ltd v. Antox India, the High Court reiterated that appellate interference with discretionary interim orders is limited. The Commercial Court’s injunction and commissioner appointment were upheld.

Judgment And Decision

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Commercial Court’s ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the appellant from using the impugned mark and device.

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