{"id":11201,"date":"2025-11-05T11:36:41","date_gmt":"2025-11-05T11:36:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=11201"},"modified":"2025-11-05T11:40:13","modified_gmt":"2025-11-05T11:40:13","slug":"floral-words-and-trademark-boundaries","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/floral-words-and-trademark-boundaries\/","title":{"rendered":"Floral Words and Trademark Boundaries"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2 id=\"factual-background\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Factual_Background\"><\/span>Factual Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>This case arose out of a conflict between two entities engaged in manufacturing and marketing consumer goods, primarily involving the use of the word \u201cTULIP\u201d as a trademark. The appellant, Suparshva Swabs India, is a partnership firm engaged in manufacturing cotton buds, cotton balls, and allied products since 1999. The firm claimed that it had coined, adopted, and used the trademark \u201cTULIPS\u201d (word and device) continuously since that year and had obtained registrations under various classes of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. According to the appellant, the mark \u201cTULIPS\u201d had, over time, acquired substantial goodwill and reputation, not just in India but also abroad, and had attained a distinctive association with its hygiene products.<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_82_2 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/floral-words-and-trademark-boundaries\/#Factual_Background\" >Factual Background<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/floral-words-and-trademark-boundaries\/#Procedural_Background\" >Procedural Background<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/floral-words-and-trademark-boundaries\/#The_Dispute\" >The Dispute<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/floral-words-and-trademark-boundaries\/#Reasoning_of_the_Court\" >Reasoning of the Court<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/floral-words-and-trademark-boundaries\/#Key_Legal_Principles_Considered\" >Key Legal Principles Considered<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/floral-words-and-trademark-boundaries\/#Decision\" >Decision<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/floral-words-and-trademark-boundaries\/#Case_Details\" >Case Details<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/floral-words-and-trademark-boundaries\/#Disclaimer\" >Disclaimer<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/floral-words-and-trademark-boundaries\/#Written_By\" >Written By<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n<p>On the other hand, the respondent, AGN International, is a firm engaged in the business of perfumes and cosmetic products. It had registered the trademark \u201cAGN TULIP\u201d in 2010 in Class 3 under a \u201cproposed to be used\u201d application, claiming that its goods, namely perfumes and sprays, were unrelated to the appellant\u2019s products. The appellant alleged that the respondents had dishonestly and fraudulently adopted a deceptively similar mark to trade upon its reputation and confuse consumers.<\/p>\n<p>In 2021, Suparshva Swabs discovered that AGN International was marketing perfumes under the name \u201cAGN TULIP\u201d. Believing that the impugned mark infringed its \u201cTULIPS\u201d trademark and amounted to passing off, the appellant filed a suit before the Commercial Court, South, Saket, New Delhi, seeking a permanent injunction to restrain AGN International from using the word \u201cTULIP\u201d in any form for perfumes, cosmetics, or related goods.<\/p>\n<p>The plaintiff also filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking a temporary injunction pending trial. The trial court dismissed this application on 03.10.2023, holding that no prima facie case was made out. The appellant challenged this order before the Delhi High Court under Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.<\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<h2 id=\"procedural-background\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Procedural_Background\"><\/span>Procedural Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>Before the District Judge, Suparshva Swabs claimed that its trademark \u201cTULIPS\u201d was arbitrary, coined, and distinctive. It argued that the mark was registered in several classes, including Class 3 (cosmetics), and that it had long-standing use since 1999, with significant advertising and international recognition. The plaintiff asserted that AGN International\u2019s use of \u201cAGN TULIP\u201d for perfumes was deceptively similar, given that the dominant portion of the respondent\u2019s mark was the word \u201cTULIP,\u201d used prominently while \u201cAGN\u201d appeared merely as a prefix.<\/p>\n<p>The defendants opposed the injunction, contending that \u201cTULIP\u201d is a generic term associated with fragrances and floral products. They asserted that their mark \u201cAGN TULIP\u201d was duly registered and that their goods \u2014 perfumes and sprays \u2014 were entirely different in nature and market segment from the plaintiff\u2019s cotton buds and swabs. They further argued that the plaintiff had no exclusive right over a common word like \u201cTULIP,\u201d which naturally described the floral fragrance of their goods.<\/p>\n<p>The District Judge, after hearing both sides, held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case or show irreparable harm. The court found that \u201cTULIP\u201d is a generic term for perfumes and that the goods were dissimilar. The judge observed that perfumes, being fragrant floral products, naturally associate with flowers such as tulips and roses. Hence, \u201cTULIP\u201d could not be monopolized by one trader for all categories of goods. The plaintiff\u2019s plea for interim injunction was thus rejected.<\/p>\n<p>Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff filed the present appeal before the Delhi High Court.<\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<h2 id=\"the-dispute\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"The_Dispute\"><\/span>The Dispute<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The principal question before the High Court was whether the trial court erred in refusing to grant an interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC. The core issue revolved around whether the appellant\u2019s mark \u201cTULIPS\u201d enjoyed such reputation and goodwill that it extended to the respondents\u2019 category of perfumes, making their use of \u201cAGN TULIP\u201d likely to cause confusion or deception in the minds of consumers.<\/p>\n<p>The dispute also required the Court to determine whether \u201cTULIP\u201d was a generic or descriptive term in relation to perfumes and fragrances, and whether the appellant\u2019s prior use since 1999 conferred upon it rights superior to the respondents\u2019 later registration from 2010.<\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<h2 id=\"reasoning\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Reasoning_of_the_Court\"><\/span>Reasoning of the Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<h3 id=\"key-legal-principles\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_Legal_Principles_Considered\"><\/span>Key Legal Principles Considered<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>Passing Off: goodwill, misrepresentation, damage (Laxmikant V. Patel)<\/li>\n<li>No infringement between two registered marks \u2013 only passing off permitted<\/li>\n<li>Goodwill must exist in the relevant market (Toyota Prius case)<\/li>\n<li>Generic\/descriptive terms cannot be monopolized<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>The High Court began by reaffirming that when both parties hold trademark registrations, no action for infringement can lie between them. The only available remedy is passing off&#8230;<\/p>\n<p>Applying these principles, the Court found that while Suparshva Swabs had substantial goodwill in relation to cotton buds, cotton balls, and hygiene products, it had not demonstrated that this goodwill extended to perfumes or fragrances before the respondents\u2019 adoption in 2010&#8230;<\/p>\n<p>The Court also evaluated whether \u201cTULIP\u201d was capable of exclusive protection. It noted that while \u201cTULIP\u201d might be arbitrary in connection with cotton products, it is descriptive or generic when used for perfumes&#8230;<\/p>\n<p>Finally, the Court upheld the trial court\u2019s view that \u201cTULIP\u201d was generic in the context of perfumes and that no irreparable injury or confusion was demonstrated.<\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<h2 id=\"decision\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Decision\"><\/span>Decision<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the District Judge\u2019s order dated 03.10.2023. It held that the appellant failed to establish the essential elements of passing off&#8230;<\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<h2 id=\"case-details\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Case_Details\"><\/span>Case Details<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<table border=\"1\" cellpadding=\"6\">\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Case Title<\/strong><\/td>\n<td>Suparshva Swabs India Vs. AGN International &amp; Ors.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Case Number<\/strong><\/td>\n<td>FAO (COMM) 253\/2023<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Neutral Citation<\/strong><\/td>\n<td>2025:DHC:9625-DB<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Order Date<\/strong><\/td>\n<td>03.11.2025<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Court<\/strong><\/td>\n<td>High Court of Delhi at New Delhi<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Coram<\/strong><\/td>\n<td>Hon\u2019ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar and Hon\u2019ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash Shukla<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<hr \/>\n<h2 id=\"disclaimer\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Disclaimer\"><\/span>Disclaimer<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives&#8230;<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"author\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Written_By\"><\/span>Written By<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Factual Background This case arose out of a conflict between two entities engaged in manufacturing and marketing consumer goods, primarily involving the use of the word \u201cTULIP\u201d as a trademark. The appellant, Suparshva Swabs India, is a partnership firm engaged in manufacturing cotton buds, cotton balls, and allied products since 1999. The firm claimed that<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":56,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[24],"class_list":{"0":"post-11201","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-intellectual-property","7":"tag-just-in"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11201","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/56"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11201"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11201\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11201"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11201"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11201"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}