The Madras High Court has refused to grant interim relief to a Chennai-based nutrition company seeking to stop a Bengaluru startup from using the word “ORIGIN” for its fresh produce business. The court held that generic words cannot be monopolised, especially when the businesses operate in entirely different product segments.
Justice N. Senthilkumar dismissed three interim injunction applications filed by Origin Nutrition Private Limited, concluding that no urgent or prima facie case was made out against the respondents.
Background of the Case
Origin Nutrition Private Limited, which sells plant-based vegan protein and dietary supplements, approached the court alleging trademark infringement by Tech7 Phyll Private Limited and Shri Annamalai Agro Products Private Limited.
The applicant claimed exclusive rights over the word “ORIGIN” and its registered mark “ORIGIN NUTRITION,” used for protein powders, supplements, and related health products sold through online platforms.
The respondents, on the other hand, run a fresh fruits and vegetables business under the brand name “ORIGIN Fresh,” operating physical outlets and online delivery platforms primarily in Bengaluru and Chennai.
According to the applicant, the use of “ORIGIN Fresh” caused confusion and diluted the goodwill of its registered trademark.
Arguments Before the Court
The applicant argued that its trademark registrations in Class 5 gave it exclusive rights over the word “ORIGIN” and that the respondents’ branding amounted to infringement and passing off.
Senior counsel for the respondents countered that the word “ORIGIN” is generic in nature and widely used in trade. He also pointed out that the two businesses fall under different trademark classes - Class 5 for nutritional supplements and Class 31 for fresh agricultural produce.
The defence further highlighted that the plaintiff’s products are sealed protein sachets, while the defendants deal in unprocessed fruits and vegetables, catering to a completely different consumer base.
Court’s Observations
The court agreed with the respondents that the word “ORIGIN” is generic and descriptive.
“The dictionary meaning of the word ‘origin’ is generic in nature, and nobody can claim an exclusive right over the word,” the bench observed.
Justice Senthilkumar noted that trademark law does not permit owners to dissect a mark and claim monopoly over a common word when the mark must be viewed as a whole.
The court also underlined that the nature of goods, customer base, and trade channels of both parties were distinct. Protein supplements and fresh vegetables, the judge said, are not competing products.
Delay and Lack of Urgency
A key factor that weighed against the applicant was delay. The court pointed out that although cease-and-desist notices were issued in December 2024, the suit was filed only in April 2025.
“In the absence of valid reasons for such delay, the court is not satisfied that any urgency exists for granting interim relief,” the judge noted.
The court held that artificially created urgency cannot be a ground to bypass legal requirements for interim protection.
Final Decision
Concluding that no prima facie case was established and that the balance of convenience favoured the respondents, the Madras High Court dismissed all three interim injunction applications.
Accordingly, O.A. Nos. 556 to 558 of 2025 were dismissed, with no order as to costs. The main commercial suit will proceed in the usual course.
Case Title: Origin Nutrition Private Limited v. Ms Tech7 Phyll Private Limited & Anr.
