The Delhi High Court has held that where the plaintiff is the prior adopter and user of a registered trademark which has acquired substantial reputation, and the defendant adopts a mark that retains the dominant and essential features of that registered mark with only a minor insertion such as the word “DIPPING”, such alteration does not dispel deceptive similarity. If the overall commercial impression remains such as to cause confusion to an unwary consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection, the use is not honest or bona fide, and a prima facie case for injunction in an infringement and passing off action is made out.
Accordingly, the Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendant, its agents, suppliers, distributors, directors, employees and all others acting on its behalf from directly or indirectly dealing in the impugned products “K3 MASALA SCHEZWAN DIPPING CHUTNEY”, “GREEN PIECE SCHEZWAN DIPPING CHUTNEY”, and “FRUVATA SCHEZWAN DIPPING CHUTNEY”, and/or any products or services bearing the mark “SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY” and/or “SCHEZWAN DIPPING CHUTNEY”, and/or from using any other mark deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s registered trademark “SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY”.
The Court further directed the defendant to place on record, in a sealed cover and within six weeks from the date of service, its books of account, invoices, sales memos and/or any other documents evidencing sale of the infringing products referred to in the injunction direction. Further, the matter was directed to be listed before the Joint Registrar (Judicial) on Aug 11, 2026 for completion of service and pleadings, and before the Court on Nov 17, 2026.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that since the suit was founded on infringement and passing off of the plaintiff’s registered trademark, comparison of the rival marks was necessary. On such comparison, the Single Judge found that the emphasis on the words “Schezwan” and “Chutney” on a white background in the defendant’s products appeared similar to that of the plaintiff, and that merely using the word “dipping” between those words did not create such a distinction as would enable an unwary consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection to differentiate between the two products.
The Bench observed that the defendant had been using the mark “Schezwan Chutney” openly on e-commerce platforms, and that such use was bound to create confusion in the minds of the public as to whether the defendant’s products were those of the plaintiff or were associated with it. It noted that the presence of brand names such as “K Masala”, “Green Piece” or “Fruvanta” at the top would not sufficiently alert the public that the products belonged to the defendant and not the plaintiff.
The Bench also held that the defendant’s products shown on e-commerce websites were deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s products bearing the registered trademark “SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY”, and that adoption of the mark “SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY”, with or without the word “DIPPING” in between, did not appear honest or bona fide. The Bench thus recorded that the plaintiff’s registered mark had garnered substantial reputation and goodwill over the years, as reflected from the sales figures and promotional expenditure, and that the defendant appeared to be riding on the coattails of the plaintiff’s immense reputation and goodwill, which was bound to dilute the plaintiff’s trademark.
Briefly, the plaintiff, Capital Foods Private Limited, filed the suit seeking reliefs for infringement and passing off in respect of its registered trademark “SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY”, along with an application for ex parte ad interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC. The plaintiff stated that it had adopted the mark in 2012 in relation to a hot, spicy and peppery sauce/dip, and that the mark had been used continuously, extensively and uninterruptedly, supported by significant sales, advertising expenditure, website presence, and social media reach. The plaintiff also relied on its trademark and copyright registrations, and on earlier favourable judicial orders, including a Division Bench order recognising that the mark had acquired secondary significance.
The plaintiff alleged that, in or about August 2025, it learnt that the defendant was manufacturing and selling products under the mark “SCHEZWAN DIPPING CHUTNEY”, and was thereby unauthorisedly using the plaintiff’s registered and well-known trademark across India. The plaintiff further stated that despite issuing a legal notice and reminders, after discovering further infringing products under the house names “Fruvanta” and “K3 Masala”, the defendant did not respond. The plaintiff also relied on listings of the impugned products on e-commerce platforms and social media, and on sample purchases delivered in Delhi, to show the defendant’s commercial use of the impugned mark.
The plaintiff’s case was that the defendant had introduced only an inconsequential variation by inserting the word “DIPPING” between “SCHEZWAN” and “CHUTNEY”, while retaining the overall commercial impression of the plaintiff’s mark and product presentation. It was also alleged that the defendant had followed the plaintiff’s product variations, including Jain versions, indicating close monitoring of the plaintiff’s offerings and an attempt to come as close as possible to the plaintiff’s highly popular products sold under the registered trademark “SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY”.
