Delhi High Court Grants Ex Parte Injunction Against “RASANAND SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY” for Infringing Capital Foods’ “SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY” Trademark

Summary

In Capital Foods Private Limited v. Patson Foods (India) Private Limited & Anr., CS(COMM) 936/2026, the Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction restraining the Defendants from using “RASANAND SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY” or any mark containing “SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY” in relation to food products. The Court held that the Plaintiff had established a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off, particularly in view of its subsisting registration, more than a decade of continuous use and the substantial goodwill and reputation acquired by the mark.

Facts of the Case

Capital Foods Private Limited, engaged in the manufacture and sale of food products, adopted the trademark SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY in 2012 for its Schezwan sauce/dip products. The Plaintiff claimed that the mark was a rare, unique and distinctive combination of two words drawn from different languages and had, through continuous and extensive use, acquired secondary significance. The Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the wordmark under Registration No. 2431851 in Class 30, dating back to 22 November 2012, and also holds copyright registration in the artistic work comprising its product packaging

The Plaintiff asserted substantial goodwill and reputation arising from extensive sales, advertising and promotional activities, and relied upon earlier decisions recognising the secondary significance of the mark.

The Defendants, Patson Foods (India) Private Limited and another entity, were manufacturing and selling products under the mark “RASANAND SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY /

After receiving a legal notice in November 2025, Defendant No. 1 had undertaken to discontinue use of the mark and not use any identical or deceptively similar mark in future. However, the Plaintiff subsequently discovered that the Defendants had resumed sale of the impugned products through their website. An investigator thereafter purchased the product online, which was delivered in Delhi on 31 July 2026 with an invoice issued by Defendant No.2.

Issue before the Court

Whether the Defendants’ use of “SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY” as part of “RASANAND SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY” in relation to identical food products amounted to infringement of the Plaintiff’s registered trademark and passing off, warranting an ex-parte ad interim injunction.

Findings of the Court

The Court found that the Plaintiff had established a prima facie case of infringement and passing off, with the balance of convenience in its favour and a likelihood of irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction. The Court noted that the Plaintiff had been using the mark continuously for more than a decade and had established formidable goodwill and reputation through substantial sales and promotional expenditure. 

The Court held that the Defendants were using the identical registered trademark for identical goods. The addition of “RASANAND” did not sufficiently distinguish the competing products, particularly since “SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY” was prominently displayed while “Rasanand” appeared in a smaller font. Considering the common trade channels and consumer base, the Court found a likelihood of confusion amongst the public.

The Court also took note of the Defendants’ prior acknowledgment of the Plaintiff’s proprietary rights and their subsequent continuation of the impugned use. This conduct prima facie indicated an intention to create an association with the Plaintiff and ride upon its goodwill and reputation.

Held

The Delhi High Court held that the Defendants were prima facie infringing the Plaintiff’s registered trademark SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY and were also passing off their goods as those of, or associated with, the Plaintiff.

Accordingly, till the next date of hearing, the Defendants and all persons acting on their behalf were restrained from directly or indirectly selling, marketing or offering for sale the impugned products under ‘RASANAND SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY’ and/or any product bearing the mark ‘SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY’, or from using any other mark identical or deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s registered mark, amounting to infringement and/or passing off.

Conclusion

The decision illustrates that where a Defendant uses a registered trademark identically in relation to identical goods, the mere addition of its own mark may not be sufficient to distinguish the competing products, particularly where the competing marks are presented in a manner likely to cause confusion.

Last Updated on 21 September, 2026