Isabella Mariam

The Delhi High Court Single Bench of Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has granted an ad-interim injunction against KRS Multipro Pvt. Ltd., a Schezwan sauce manufacturer, restraining it from using the identical mark “Schezwan Chutney.” The order, dated November 7, 2025, was passed in a suit filed by Capital Foods seeking protection of its registered trademark and relief against passing off. Justice Arora found that the plaintiff, a reputed entity in the food sector, had established a strong prima facie case of trademark infringement. Observing that the defendants’ use of the mark was likely to mislead consumers and damage goodwill, the Court directed them to cease manufacturing or selling products under the disputed mark pending further proceedings.

The plaintiff, a leading food company associated with a major consumer group, filed a commercial suit before the High Court of Delhi seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from infringing its registered trademark “SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY,” passing off, and related reliefs. The plaintiff stated that it had coined and adopted the mark “SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY” in 2012 for its sauce and dip products, which were developed after extensive research and had become widely recognized. The mark was registered under number 2431851 dated 22 November 2012, and the plaintiff also held copyright registration for its trade dress under No. A-149563/2023.

Also Read: Decree That Is ‘Nullity’ Can Be Challenged Even During Execution; Supreme Court Quashes Bombay High Court Order Refusing Execution Of Trial Decree

The plaintiff submitted evidence of turnover and advertisement expenditure for its products between 2012 and 2025, including sales worth Rs. 18,677 lakhs and advertising expenses of Rs. 15.99 crores for the year 2024–2025. It was contended that the defendants were engaged in the manufacture and sale of products under the identical mark “SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY,” marketed via their website and packaging. The plaintiff issued a cease-and-desist notice dated 4 June 2025 and a reminder on 9 July 2025, to which the defendants replied on 19 July 2025 claiming that the term was generic and descriptive.

The plaintiff produced photographs of the defendants’ product, an investigator’s report of purchase through the defendants’ website, and packaging samples showing the use of the mark. The plaintiff invoked provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, particularly Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, and the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, seeking interim injunction. The defendants neither appeared before the Court nor filed replies.

The Court recorded that the Plaintiffs are the registered proprietor of the trademark/wordmark ‘SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY’ by virtue of prior adoption, long, continuous and extensive use and substantial marketing/advertising and sales of its products bearing the said mark. It stated that the Plaintiff has placed on record documents showing the valid and subsisting trademark/wordmark registration in its favour.

The Court observed that the Plaintiff has also filed an order of the Division Bench of this Court which records that its mark ‘SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY’ has been acknowledged as having acquired a secondary significance due to its voluminous sales and advertisement campaigns.

It recorded that the Defendants’ adoption of an identical and deceptively similar mark, ‘SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY’, is a clear case of dishonest imitation intended to ride upon the Plaintiff’s reputation and mislead the unwary consumers making them believe that they are purchasing an authorized product of the Plaintiff.

During the hearing, the Court noted that learned counsel for the Plaintiff has handed over the product of the Defendants bearing the impugned mark ‘SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY’. Upon examination, the Court stated that it prima facie appears that the Defendants have copied the Plaintiff’s registered mark ‘SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY’ precisely as it is, on to the packaging of their product bearing the impugned mark.

The Court found that 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 to the Plaintiff, if the Defendants are not restrained. It further observed that prejudice would also be caused to the public as the mark of the Defendants is identical to that of the Plaintiff and is likely to cause confusion in the market.

Also Read: Delhi High Court Restrains Food Manufacturer From Using ‘Schezwan Chutney’ Mark; Cites Deceptive Similarity With Registered Trademark

The Court directed that “until the next date of hearing the Defendants and all other acting for and on their behalf are restrained from directly or indirectly dealing in any products/packaging/labels bearing the mark ‘SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY’ and/or from using any other mark that may be deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s trademark ‘SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY’.” It further ordered that “compliance of Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC be done within a period of one (1) week from today.” The Court issued notice to the Defendants through all modes and directed replies to be filed within four (4) weeks, with rejoinders, if any, within four (4) weeks thereafter. The matter was listed before the Joint Registrar on 17 December 2025 and before the Court on 15 April 2026.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Plaintiff: Mr. Dhruv Anand, Mr. Rohil Bansal, and Mr. Chirayu Prahlad, Advocates

Case Title: Capital Foods Private Limited v. KRS Multipro Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1186/2025
Bench: Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora