Safiya Malik

The High Court of Delhi, Single Bench of Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora granted an ad-interim injunction restraining a defendant food manufacturer from using “Schezwan Tufani Chutney,” “Schezwan Chutney,” or any deceptively similar mark on products, packaging, labels, or online listings, pending further orders. The Court noted the plaintiff’s registered trademark in “SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY,” its long-standing use, and evidence that the defendant marketed a product as “Schezwan Tufani Chutney” while also promoting it online as “Schezwan Chutney.” Finding a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and risk of consumer confusion, the Court directed compliance with Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC and issued notice for further proceedings.

The plaintiff, Capital Foods Private Limited, filed a commercial suit seeking reliefs for alleged infringement and passing off in relation to its registered trademark “SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY.” The plaintiff stated that it is engaged in manufacturing, marketing, and retailing food products for over two decades and that the mark “SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY” has been used continuously since 2012. It relied on Trademark Registration No. 2431851 in Class 30 and a copyright registration concerning the artistic trade dress of its product. The plaintiff recorded revenue figures, advertisement expenses, and details of extensive promotional activities. It asserted that the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court had previously recorded that its trademark acquired secondary significance.

Also Read: Supreme Court: Magistrate Empowered to Order FIR Under S.156(3) CrPC When Complaint Reveals Cognizable Offence; Restores Investigation in Forged E-Stamp Case

The dispute arose when the defendant marketed and sold products under “SCHEZWAN TUFANI CHUTNEY” and also displayed the term “SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY” independently on online platforms including its own website and various e-commerce portals. The plaintiff submitted invoices, product photographs, screenshots, and records of an investigator’s purchase of the allegedly infringing product. It also placed on record a legal notice dated 09.05.2025 and the defendant’s reply dated 04.06.2025.

The plaintiff invoked provisions under the Commercial Courts Act, the Code of Civil Procedure including Order XI Rule 1(4), Section 151 CPC, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, Order VII Rule 11(b), and Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2. Applications were filed seeking leave to file additional documents, exemptions from filing clearer copies, exemption from pre-litigation mediation, and extension of time to deposit court fees. The suit was thereafter directed to be registered, summons issued, timelines set for pleadings, and the present application for interim injunction adjudicated.

The Court recorded that the plaintiff is the “registered proprietor of the trademark ‘SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY’ and has extensively used this mark since 2012.” It noted that the Division Bench had “observed that Plaintiff’s trademark has acquired secondary significance.” The Court stated that the plaintiff placed on record “voluminous sales of its flagship product and significant advertisement expenditure for promotion of the said product and trademark.” It further recorded the plaintiff’s contention that the defendant had adopted “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.”

The Court observed that despite advance service, “none appears on behalf of Defendant.” It examined the pleadings, documents and the investigator’s purchase of the defendant’s product, recording that the label used by the defendant prominently displayed the disputed mark and that online listings showed standalone use of the plaintiff’s registered trademark. It stated that such use was “intended to ride upon the Plaintiff’s reputation and mislead consumers.” It further recorded that the plaintiff made out a prima facie case for injunction, and that “balance of convenience lies in favour of the Plaintiff, and irreparable harm will be caused to the Plaintiff, if the Defendant is not restrained.” It also noted that consumer prejudice was likely because the defendant’s mark was “deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff and likely to cause confusion in the market.”

Also Read: Delhi High Court Upholds Injunction in Family Trademark Dispute Over ‘Sachamoti’ Brand, Recognizes Prior User Rights of Registered Proprietor

The Court directed that “until the next date of hearing Defendant and all others acting for and on its behalf are restrained from directly or indirectly dealing in any products/packaging/labels bearing the marks SCHEZWAN TUFANI CHUTNEY and/or SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY and/or from using any other mark that may be deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s trademark ‘SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY’.”

It ordered that compliance with Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC “be done within a period of one (1) week from today.”The Court stated that upon the plaintiff taking necessary steps, “issue notice to the Defendant through all modes.” It directed the filing of reply within four weeks from receipt of notice and rejoinder within four weeks thereafter. It listed the matter before the Joint Registrar on 17.12.2025 and before the Court on 09.04.2026.

Advocates Representing the Parties

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

Case Title: Capital Foods Private Limited v. Damyaa (PJ) Foods Private Limited
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1165/2025
Bench: Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora