Court’s decision
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining a food manufacturer from using the mark “Schezwan Tufani Chutney” or any deceptively similar mark infringing the registered trademark “Schezwan Chutney” of Tata Group’s associate company. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora held that the plaintiff had successfully demonstrated a prima facie case of dishonest imitation, observing that the defendant’s conduct clearly indicated an intention to ride upon the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff’s brand.
The Court found that the defendant had even advertised its products under the identical term “Schezwan Chutney,” dropping the word “Tufani” to mislead consumers, thereby attempting to pass off its goods as those of the plaintiff. The injunction prohibits the defendant and its agents from manufacturing, selling, or promoting any product using the infringing marks until the next hearing.
“The Defendant’s adoption of an identical and deceptively similar mark ‘Schezwan Tufani Chutney’, and its online promotion under the term ‘Schezwan Chutney’, is a clear case of dishonest imitation intended to ride upon the Plaintiff’s reputation and mislead consumers.”
Facts
The plaintiff, an associate of Tata Consumer Products Limited and part of the TATA Group, has been a pioneer in the food industry for over two decades, manufacturing and marketing a wide range of products including sauces, noodles, condiments, and ready-to-eat foods. It introduced the ‘Schezwan Chutney’ brand in 2012, which became its flagship product representing the concept of “Desi Chinese” cuisine.
The trademark “Schezwan Chutney” is registered under No. 2431851 in Class 30 and protected by Copyright Registration No. A-149563/2023 for its artistic label. The mark is a coined expression combining words from two languages, representing the fusion of Indian and Chinese flavours, and has been continuously used for over a decade.
The plaintiff recorded a revenue of over ₹93,000 lakhs in FY 2024–25, spending ₹6,388 lakhs on advertising and ₹15.99 crores specifically on the Schezwan Chutney brand. The mark has received recognition as a Consumer Superbrand, and a previous order of the Division Bench dated 25 January 2023 in Capital Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Radiant Indus Chem Pvt. Ltd. held that the mark had acquired secondary significance in the market.
In May 2025, the plaintiff discovered that the defendant was selling a product labeled “Schezwan Tufani Chutney” through its website and major e-commerce platforms like Amazon and Flipkart. The plaintiff’s investigator ordered the product, which was found to carry nearly identical packaging and artistic features. Moreover, the defendant’s social media pages advertised the product simply as “Schezwan Chutney”, omitting “Tufani”, creating a deliberate impression of association with the plaintiff’s product.
A cease-and-desist notice was issued on 9 May 2025, but the defendant refused compliance in its reply dated 4 June 2025, prompting the plaintiff to initiate infringement proceedings.
Issues
- Whether the mark “Schezwan Chutney” constitutes a distinctive trademark capable of protection.
- Whether the defendant’s use of “Schezwan Tufani Chutney” amounts to infringement and passing off.
- Whether a case for grant of ex-parte ad-interim injunction was made out in favour of the plaintiff.
Petitioner’s arguments
The plaintiff argued that its coined expression “Schezwan Chutney” is distinctive and has no dictionary meaning, making it inherently capable of trademark protection. It was submitted that while competitors may use generic expressions such as “Schezwan Sauce” or “Chinese Chutney”, none can use the unique coined term “Schezwan Chutney”, which has become synonymous with the plaintiff’s product.
The counsel emphasized that the defendant’s use of “Schezwan Tufani Chutney” and online marketing under the identical term “Schezwan Chutney” demonstrates deliberate infringement aimed at misleading consumers into believing the product was associated with the plaintiff. The act amounted to dishonest adoption and bad faith under Sections 29(1), 29(2)(b), and 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
It was further argued that the balance of convenience and irreparable harm lay entirely in the plaintiff’s favour, as continued sale by the defendant would not only cause loss of sales but also dilute the reputation of the flagship mark which has acquired immense goodwill across India.
Respondent’s arguments
The defendant did not appear despite service of advance paper-book, and the injunction was decided ex parte. The Court noted, however, that the plaintiff had provided evidence of the defendant’s continuing use of the infringing mark on multiple platforms even after receipt of the legal notice. The defendant’s deliberate attempt to pass off its goods as those of the plaintiff was inferred from its online marketing strategy and identical packaging.
Analysis of the law
Justice Arora examined the statutory framework under Sections 28, 29, and 31 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, holding that registration of a trademark confers exclusive rights on its proprietor and that any identical or deceptively similar use by another party for identical goods constitutes infringement.
The Court relied on the principle that “coined expressions enjoy stronger protection”, as they possess inherent distinctiveness. The expression “Schezwan Chutney”, though seemingly descriptive, was found to have acquired secondary meaning and distinctiveness through long-standing, exclusive, and extensive use by the plaintiff.
The Judge emphasized that the defendant’s conduct violated the honest concurrent use test and fell squarely under Section 29(2)(b), as it was likely to cause confusion and association in the minds of average consumers. The evidence demonstrated that consumers searching online for “Schezwan Chutney” were being directed to the defendant’s products, establishing a prima facie case of deceptive similarity and unfair competition.
Precedent analysis
- Capital Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Radiant Indus Chem Pvt. Ltd. (2023) – The Division Bench held that the mark “Schezwan Chutney” had acquired secondary significance, strengthening its distinctiveness.
- Parle Products v. J.P. & Co. (1972 1 SCC 618) – Established that the test for similarity depends on the overall impression of the mark and its phonetic, visual, and structural resemblance.
- Midas Hygiene Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Sudhir Bhatia (2004) 3 SCC 90 – Clarified that once infringement is proven, injunctions must follow, and delay or acquiescence cannot defeat protection.
- Kaviraj Pandit Dura Dutt Sharma v. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories (AIR 1965 SC 980) – Distinguished between infringement and passing off, holding that infringement is complete upon proof of unauthorized use of the registered mark.
By applying these precedents, the Court concluded that the plaintiff’s mark had achieved an exclusive identity, and the defendant’s use of an identical mark could not be considered bona fide or descriptive.
Court’s reasoning
The Court observed that the plaintiff’s sales and advertising expenditure, coupled with its extensive social media promotion, established its strong market presence and consumer recognition. The defendant’s identical adoption of the mark “Schezwan Chutney” in advertisements, coupled with its omission of “Tufani,” was a deliberate attempt to mislead.
Justice Arora noted that confusion was inevitable, especially as both parties operated in the same market segment and distributed through identical trade channels such as e-commerce platforms. The Court held that the mark “Schezwan Chutney” is not generic but a coined mark, entitled to full protection against misuse.
“The Plaintiff has made out a prima facie case for grant of an ad-interim injunction. Balance of convenience lies in favour of the Plaintiff, and irreparable harm will be caused if the Defendant is not restrained.”
The Judge found that continued sale of the infringing product would not only harm the plaintiff’s goodwill but also mislead the public, violating the principles of consumer protection under trademark law.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court allowed the application and passed an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant, its agents, and distributors from using “Schezwan Tufani Chutney”, “Schezwan Chutney”, or any other deceptively similar mark.
The Court directed the plaintiff to comply with Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC within one week and scheduled the matter before the Joint Registrar on 17 December 2025 and before the Court on 9 April 2026.
The order reaffirmed that dishonest adoption of a well-known mark warrants immediate judicial intervention, especially where public deception and dilution of goodwill are apparent.
Implications
This order reinforces the protection of coined and distinctive marks under Indian trademark law, even when they include seemingly descriptive elements. It clarifies that once a mark gains secondary significance, it cannot be imitated under the guise of descriptive use.
The ruling is a clear signal to food and FMCG companies that dishonest imitation and keyword manipulation on e-commerce or social media platforms will invite swift injunctive action. It also reaffirms that ex-parte injunctions remain a powerful remedy against blatant infringement in fast-moving consumer goods sectors.