Delhi High Court’s Injunction Order in Capital Foods v. Pitambari Products – Trademark Infringement Case.

Case overview

The Delhi High Court, presided over by Hon’ble Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, delivered an order dated 28.07.2025 in CS(COMM) 754/2025, granting an ad-interim ex-parte injunction in favor of Capital Foods Private Limited (Plaintiff) against Pitambari Products Private Limited (Defendant). The Plaintiff sought to restrain the Defendant from using the trademark “SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY”, alleging infringement, passing off, and dilution of its registered mark.

Plaintiff’s Trademark Rights

The Plaintiff, a subsidiary of Tata Consumers Products Limited, claimed ownership of the registered trademark “SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY” (No. 2431851, Class 30) since 2012. It argued that the mark, though derived from the term “Schezwan,” had acquired secondary significance due to extensive use, promotional expenditure (₹15.99 crores in 2025), and substantial sales (₹186.77 crores in 2024-25). The Plaintiff also held copyright in its trade dress (Registration No. A-149563/2023).

Defendant’s Alleged Infringement

The Defendant was accused of manufacturing and selling products under the identical mark “SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY”, despite receiving a legal notice (04.06.2025). The Defendant contested the claim, arguing that the mark was descriptive and not distinctive under Section 2(zb) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. However, the Court dismissed this argument, citing prior judgments, including a Division Bench order (25.01.2023 in FAO(OS)(COMM) 16/2023), which recognized the mark’s distinctiveness.

Court’s Prima Facie Findings

The Court compared the Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s products and found the marks identical. It noted that:

1. The Plaintiff’s mark had acquired distinctiveness through long-standing use and judicial recognition.
2. The Defendant’s adoption was recent, and its continued use despite legal notice indicated bad faith.
3. Precedent cases (CS(COMM) 148/2025, 595/2025, 556/2025) had already granted injunctions against similar infringements.

Grant of Ad-Interim Injunction

The Court restrained the Defendant from:

• Using the mark “SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY” or any deceptively similar mark.
• Infringing the Plaintiff’s registered trademark (No. 2431851).

The injunction was limited to the word mark and did not extend to the Defendant’s trade dress. The Court left open the possibility for the Defendant to seek permission to exhaust existing stock upon appearance.

Procedural Directions

1. Notice issued to the Defendant through all permissible modes.
2. Reply to be filed within four weeks, with a rejoinder allowed in four weeks thereafter.
3. Compliance with Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC (service of injunction order) mandated within two weeks.
4. Next listing before the Joint Registrar on 02.09.2025 and before the Court on 16.12.2025.

Key Takeaways

This order reinforces the principle that registered trademarks with acquired distinctiveness enjoy strong protection, even if they contain descriptive elements. Courts will grant ex-parte injunctions where prima facie infringement is evident, especially when prior judgments support the Plaintiff’s rights. The Defendant’s failure to appear and the Plaintiff’s documented enforcement history further strengthened the case for interim relief.

Highlights of the Case

For trademark owners, this case highlights the importance of:

• Proactively enforcing rights through legal notices and litigation.
• Maintaining detailed records of sales, promotions, and prior judgments to establish distinctiveness.
• Seeking urgent injunctive relief to prevent market confusion.

For defendants, it underscores the risks of ignoring legal notices and the difficulty in defending against well-documented trademark claims.

About the Author

Neeraj Gogia Advocate is expert in commercial litigation, criminal matters, and divorce cases. He provides effective representation across all types of litigation in Delhi’s judicial landscape.

Mr. Neeraj Gogia, Advocate, may be contacted via e mail at advocateneerajgogia@gmail.com or telephonically/WhatsApp at +91-9891800100.

This article is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

© 2025 [OnlyTrademark.com]. All rights reserved.

Follow us on LinkedIn for more insightful legal analyses.