Madras High Court Upholds Trade Marks Registry Order Rejecting “Fresh Not Frozen” Mark

The Madras High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by Freshtohome Foods Private Limited, a Bangalore-based online grocery delivery platform against a 2019 order of the Trade Marks Registry rejecting its trademark application for the brand “FRESH NOT FROZEN”. Justice N Anand Venkatesh passed the order on December 18, 2025. The court held that the proposed mark was deceptively similar to an existing registered trademark, “FRESH N FROZEN”, which covers similar food-related retail services. The court said customers were likely to be confused at first glance.It observed, “The class of customers who are likely to buy the goods with their reasonable mental faculty will be certainly misled on a first look of the trade mark that is sought for by the appellant, since the only letters that have been added by the appellant are 'OT' and every other word in the mark that has already been registered is available even in the trade mark that is sought for by the appellant.”Freshtohome sells meat, fish and other food products through an online delivery platform. The company applied for registration of the mark in March 2016 under Class 35. This class covers online retail services for food products. Freshtohome claimed it had used the mark continuously from the date of application.The Trade Marks Registry raised objections to the application citing the existence of a prior registered trademark “FRESH N FROZEN” in Class 35 for similar retail and wholesale services relating to food products. After considering the reply submitted by the company and hearing the matter, the Registry ultimately rejected the trademark application.While examining the challenge to this rejection, the court noted that the earlier mark “FRESH N FROZEN” was a validly registered trademark covering identical services in the same class and the mark sought to be registered by Freshtohome was deceptively similar to it. The court observed that, while assessing whether two trademarks are deceptively similar, several factors must be examined, including the nature of the marks, the extent of visual and phonetic resemblance between them and the type of goods or services for which the marks are used.It clarified that the decisive factor was not the meaning sought to be conveyed by the words but whether the marks were deceptively similar when viewed as a whole.Finding no illegality in the decision of the Trade Marks Registry, the Court ruled that the rejection of the application was justified under law.Accordingly, the appeal against the Trademark Registry's order was dismissed.Case Title: Freshtohome Foods Private Limited v. The Registrar of Trade MarksCitation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 2Case Number: (T)CMA(TM) No. 189 of 2023For Appellant: Advocate P. MageshFor Respondent: Central Government Standing Counsel G. IlangovanClick Here To Read/Download Order

Madras High Court Upholds Trade Marks Registry Order Rejecting “Fresh Not Frozen” Mark

Ayushi Shukla

Tags