Holding continued use of identical mark after express acknowledgment of proprietor’s rights as evidence of dishonest intention, the Delhi High Court has granted an ex parte ad interim injunction and restrained Patson Foods (Defendants) and all others acting on their behalf, until the next date of hearing, from directly or indirectly selling, marketing or offering for sale the impugned products under the mark “RASANAND SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY” and/or any product bearing the mark “SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY”, or from using any other mark identical or deceptively similar to Capital Foods (Plaintiff’s) registered mark SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY, amounting to infringement and/or passing off.
The Court held that a registered proprietor of a trademark that has acquired secondary significance through sustained, extensive and uninterrupted use over more than a decade is entitled to protection against identical use of the mark on identical goods, even where the alleged infringer appends its own house mark in a smaller font, where such use is likely to cause confusion among members of the public.
The High Court cautioned that continued use of a mark after an express acknowledgment of the proprietor’s rights and an undertaking to cease such use is a strong indicator of dishonest intention and constitutes both infringement under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and passing off. Also, mere addition of a house mark in a smaller font does not dispel the likelihood of confusion where the plaintiff’s mark is used prominently and the goods, trade channels and consumer base are identical.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Jyoti Singh noted that the Plaintiff had made out a prima facie case for grant of ex parte ad interim injunction, that the balance of convenience lay in favour of the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff was likely to suffer irreparable harm if the injunction was not granted. The Court observed that the Defendants had adopted a mark identical to the Plaintiff’s registered mark in relation to identical goods, and that the use of the word ‘Rasanand’ in a smaller font was insufficient to distinguish the rival products when tested from the standpoint of a purchaser of average intelligence and imperfect recollection.
The Court further observed that the trade channels and consumer base were common, and that there was every likelihood of confusion among members of the public. The Court placed reliance on the fact that Defendant No. 1 had expressly acknowledged the proprietary right of the Plaintiff in the mark and had undertaken to cease its use, but had thereafter continued to use the mark, which demonstrated dishonest intention to ride on the Plaintiff’s goodwill and to misrepresent that the Defendants’ product emanated from, or was associated with, the Plaintiff.
The Court also observed that the Plaintiff exercised no control over the quality of the Defendants’ goods, and that any adverse impact on consumer health would erode the Plaintiff’s goodwill and dilute the distinctiveness of the SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY mark.
Briefly, Capital Foods Private Limited, a leading Indian food company now owned by Tata Consumer Products Limited, filed a commercial suit against Patson Foods (India) Private Limited and another entity belonging to the Patson Group, alleging infringement of its registered trademark “SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY” and passing off. The Plaintiff claimed to have coined and adopted the mark in 2012 for its proprietary Schezwan sauce, a hot, spicy and peppery dip, and to have been the first to identify and label the “Desi Chinese” cuisine native to India.
The Plaintiff holds a wordmark registration for SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY (Registration No. 2431851 in Class 30, dating back to Nov 22, 2012) and a copyright registration in the artistic packaging. Over more than a decade, the Plaintiff promoted the mark through celebrity endorsements featuring Ranveer Singh (since 2015), Bobby Deol, Sreeleela, chefs Harpal Singh Sokhi and Ajay Chopra, and celebrities including Neena Gupta, Tamannah Bhatia and the late Sridevi, along with placements in films such as Golmaal Again and reality shows Bigg Boss. The mark was conferred ‘Consumer Superbrand’ status by Superbrands India, and the Plaintiff’s brand website ‘www.chingssecret.com’ and social media accounts enjoy a substantial following.
Also read ‘FSL Report Still Awaited’; Delhi HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Sexual Assault Case
Earlier, the Delhi High Court (Division Bench) in Capital Foods v. Radiant Indus Chem order dated Jan 25, 2023 and the Bombay High Court in Capital Foods v. Shri Hari Industries order dated Aug 01, 2023) had already recorded that SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY had acquired secondary significance. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants were selling an identical product under the mark “RASANAND SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY”, with the house mark “Rasanand” appearing in a smaller font.
After a legal notice dated Nov 18, 2025, Defendant No. 1 responded by email on Nov 21, 2025 stating that it had discontinued the impugned product and undertook not to use the mark in future. However, in March 2026, the Plaintiff discovered that the Defendant was still selling the product through ‘www.patsonfoods.com’, and a further cease-and-desist letter dated March 10, 2026 went unanswered. In July 2026, the Plaintiff’s investigator placed an order through the Defendant’s website and received the impugned product at Delhi on July 31, 2026, accompanied by a tax invoice issued by Defendant No. 2.
