Madras High Court Rejects Vegan Brand Origin Nutrition's Interim Plea To Restrain 'ORIGIN FRESH' Trademark

The Madras High Court has refused to grant interim relief to Origin Nutrition Private Limited, a maker of vegan protein products, in its trademark infrigment dispute with Tech7 Phyll Private Limited over the use of the name “ORIGIN/ORIGIN FRESH” for selling fruits and vegetables.

In an order dated December 19, 2025, Justice N Senthilkumar said that “ORIGIN” is a common, generic word and cannot be claimed as an exclusive trademark.

The court also pointed out that the two companies are in very different lines of business and serve different kinds of customers, leaving little room for any real confusion.

Origin Nutrition, a Chennai-based maker of plant-based protein and nutrition products, told the Court that it holds registered rights over the marks “ORIGIN” and “ORIGIN NUTRITION” in Class 5, which covers pharmaceutical preparations and dietetic substances. It sought an injunction to stop Tech7 Phyll and its associated entity from using “ORIGIN” and “ORIGIN FRESH” for fresh fruits and vegetables, alleging infringement, passing off and dilution of goodwill.

Tech7 Phyll opposed the plea, arguing that “ORIGIN” is a common dictionary word. It pointed out that it holds a registered device mark “ORIGIN” in Class 31 for agricultural products, including fresh fruits and vegetables. The company said Origin Nutrition's registrations relate only to nutritional supplements and that there is no overlap in goods, trade channels, or customer base.

The court took note of the practical differences between the two businesses. Origin Nutrition sells vegan protein and nutrition products in sealed packaging, while Tech7 Phyll runs retail outlets selling fresh fruits and vegetables under the brand “ORIGIN FRESH”.

Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Nandhini Deluxe v. Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited, the court observed, “Even for the goods falling under the same class, it was held that a proprietor of the trademark cannot enjoy monopoly over the entire class of goods. In the case on hand, the goods of the applicant and respondents fall under different categories. Therefore, there is no justification in the claim of the applicant, who is challenging the use of the trademark ORIGIN FRESH by the respondents.”

The court reiterated that trademarks must be assessed as a whole and not broken into parts. The mere presence of a common word in a mark, the court said, does not give its owner monopoly rights over that word.

On the test of infringement and passing off, the court said the key question is whether the marks, seen as a whole, are deceptively similar and likely to confuse consumers. Given the difference in the nature of goods sold by both parties and their classification, and the target customers, the court was of the opinion that there was no such likelihood in this case.

Holding that Origin Nutrition had failed to show a prima facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable harm, the court dismissed its applications seeking interim injunction.