No Room for ‘Dipping’: The Delhi High Court Protects the Trademark, “Schezwan Chutney"
Sep 3
3 min read
In the case of Capital Foods Private Limited v. Kishan Rameshbhai Kaswala Trading as K3 Masala[1], the Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of Capital Foods Private Limited (Plaintiff), restraining the Defendant from using the trade marks “SCHEZWAN DIPPING CHUTNEY” and other deceptively similar variations.
Background of the Dispute
Capital Foods Private Limited, the company behind the iconic Ching's Secret brand, conceived the mark "SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY" in 2012. The Plaintiff claimed its mark to be a distinctive combination of two words used in relation to a hot, spicy, and peppery sauce developed through significant proprietary research and development. Over the years, the mark, “SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY” acquired substantial goodwill and reputation, reflected in strong sales figures, extensive promotional efforts, and a vast social media presence, as provided by the Plaintiff.
The dispute arose when the Plaintiff discovered that the Defendant was manufacturing and selling overlapping goods under the mark “SCHEZWAN DIPPING CHUTNEY”. The products under the Defendant's mark were available for sale on E-commerce websites like Amazon, Flipkart, and Meesho.
The Plaintiff further alleged that despite having served legal notices, the Defendant neither responded nor discontinued its activities. Instead, it was discovered that the Defendant was marketing similar products under different house marks, such as ‘Fruvanta’ and ‘K3 Masala’.
The Plaintiff also contended that the Defendant made a conscious effort to emulate the Plaintiff's product portfolio and capitalise on the market success and consumer recognition associated with its "SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY" products.
Legal question
Could inserting a descriptive word, such as 'dipping', into the center of a registered trademark be sufficient to distinguish the Defendant's products from the Plaintiff's? And does operating under a different house brand (such as 'K3 Masala' or 'Fruvanta') protect a defendant from a passing off or infringement lawsuit?
Court’s Analysis
In assessing the marks of the parties, the Court considered the overall visual and commercial impression conveyed by the Defendant’s products and noted that the words ‘Schezwan’ and ‘Chutney’ were prominently displayed on a white background in a manner closely resembling the Plaintiff’s presentation. Applying the established test of the unwary consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection, the Court held that the visual and phonetic similarities between “SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY” and “SCHEZWAN DIPPING CHUTNEY” were sufficient to give rise to a likelihood of confusion. It observed that the mere insertion of the word ‘dipping’ between ‘Schezwan’ and ‘Chutney’ was insufficient to distinguish the Defendant’s product from that of the Plaintiff and amounted to mere cosmetic changes.
Further, the Court also stated that mere addition of house marks such as “K3 Masala”, “Green Piece”, and “Fruvanta”, did not adequately indicate a different trade source, particularly when “SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY” remained the dominant and most prominent feature of the packaging.[2]
The Court also noted that the Plaintiff’s mark had acquired substantial goodwill and reputation through long-standing use, significant sales, and extensive promotional activities. In these circumstances, the Defendant’s adoption of ‘SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY’, whether with or without the addition of the word ‘DIPPING’, could not be regarded as honest or coincidental. The Court concluded that the Defendant was seeking to benefit from the goodwill and consumer recognition associated with the Plaintiff’s mark.
Accordingly, the Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the Defendant from using the mark, “SCHEZWAN DIPPING CHUTNEY” or any other deceptively similar variations.
Conclusion
The Order serves as a reminder that businesses cannot avoid infringement responsibility by adding descriptive phrases to a well-known mark or making cosmetic changes. Further, adding house brands on the label of the products does not alone invalidate an infringement or passing off claim. Courts consider what the consumer perceives first, and if that is the infringing mark, the house brand provides minimal protection.
[1] (CS(COMM) 562/2026)
[2] chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://drive.usercontent.google.com/download?id=11xR8JlGh0_c6P2N83XIUaXqrb2rDQPTI&authuser=0&acrobatPromotionSource=gdrive_chrome-search
Vrinda Harmilapi
Associate
Comments