Madras High Court Finds ‘ORIGIN’ Generic, Allows Use of ‘ORIGIN FRESH’ for Produce

Madras High Court Finds ‘ORIGIN’ Generic, Allows Use of ‘ORIGIN FRESH’ for Produce

Introduction

The Madras High Court has refused to grant interim relief to a vegan nutrition brand seeking to restrain the use of the mark “ORIGIN FRESH.” The Court held that “ORIGIN” is a generic

dictionary word and, in the absence of overlapping goods or consumer confusion, cannot be monopolised by one trader.

Factual Background

The dispute arose between Origin Nutrition Private Limited, a Chennai-based manufacturer of plant-based protein and nutrition products, and Tech7 Phyll Private Limited, which sells fresh fruits and vegetables.

Origin Nutrition holds registered trademarks “ORIGIN” and “ORIGIN NUTRITION” in Class 5, covering pharmaceutical preparations and dietetic substances. Alleging infringement, passing off and dilution, it sought to restrain Tech7 Phyll from using “ORIGIN” and “ORIGIN FRESH” in relation to agricultural produce.

Tech7 Phyll, on the other hand, operates retail outlets selling fresh fruits and vegetables under the brand “ORIGIN FRESH” and holds a registered device mark “ORIGIN” in Class 31, which covers agricultural and horticultural goods.

Procedural Background

Origin Nutrition instituted a commercial suit before the Madras High Court along with applications seeking interim injunction. The matter was heard by Justice N. Senthilkumar, who passed the impugned order on December 19, 2025, dismissing the interim applications.

Issues

1. Whether “ORIGIN” is capable of exclusive appropriation as a trademark.

2. Whether the use of “ORIGIN FRESH” infringed Origin Nutrition’s registered marks.

3. Whether there was a likelihood of consumer confusion or passing off, considering the nature of goods and trade channels.

4. Whether the plaintiff satisfied the tests of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable harm.

Contentions of the Parties

Plaintiff: Origin Nutrition argued that it had acquired statutory rights over the marks “ORIGIN” and “ORIGIN NUTRITION” and that Tech7 Phyll’s use of “ORIGIN FRESH” diluted its goodwill. It contended that consumers could assume an association between the two businesses, particularly given the growing overlap between health foods and fresh produce.

Defendants: The defendants submitted that “ORIGIN” is a generic, commonly used word incapable of monopoly. They highlighted that their registration was in Class 31 for fresh fruits and vegetables, whereas Origin Nutrition’s registrations were confined to Class 5 supplements. They emphasised the complete divergence in goods, packaging, trade channels and consumer base.

Reasoning and Analysis

Justice Senthilkumar observed that generic or descriptive words cannot be claimed as exclusive trademarks unless they acquire exceptional distinctiveness. The Court held that the mere presence of a common word in two marks does not, by itself, establish infringement.

Placing reliance on the Supreme Court’s decision in Nandhini Deluxe v. Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited, the Court reiterated that even within the same class, monopoly over the entire class of goods is impermissible, and the position is even weaker when the goods fall in different classes and categories.

The Court also examined the practical realities of the market. Origin Nutrition’s products are sold as sealed, packaged vegan supplements, whereas Tech7 Phyll operates retail outlets selling fresh fruits and vegetables. Given the difference in nature of goods, price points, consumer perception and purchasing habits, the Court found no realistic likelihood of confusion.

The marks were required to be assessed as a whole, and viewed holistically, the Court held that “ORIGIN FRESH” was neither deceptively similar to “ORIGIN NUTRITION” nor likely to mislead consumers.

Decision

The Madras High Court held that Origin Nutrition failed to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience or irreparable injury. Concluding that “ORIGIN” is a generic word and that the rival businesses operate in distinct commercial spheres, the Court dismissed the interim applications and refused to restrain the use of the “ORIGIN FRESH” trademark.

In this case the plaintiff was represented by Mr. MS Bharath, Advocate.