Trademark Dispute Over ‘Schezwan Chutney’: Capital Foods vs. Dabur

In a saga that has captivated legal experts and businesses alike, the trademark battle between Capital Foods Private Limited and Dabur India Limited has reignited conversations about the legal intricacies of descriptive marks and the thin line between genericity and distinctiveness. At the heart of the dispute lies the term “Schezwan Chutney,” a descriptor of a product type that Capital Foods claims to have imbued with distinctiveness through extensive use under its ‘Ching’s Secret’ brand.

While the present controversy continues to unfold, it is instructive to revisit earlier developments in this contentious journey, particularly a 2022 case that set the stage for today’s courtroom battles.

Background

Capital Foods asserts that it pioneered the term ‘Schezwan Chutney’ in India, associating it with a specific product under its ‘Ching’s Secret’ brand. The company holds a registered trademark for ‘Schezwan Chutney’ and alleges substantial investment in promoting this product, leading to significant consumer recognition. In 2024, Dabur introduced a product labelled ‘Schezwan Chutney,’ prompting Capital Foods to file a lawsuit alleging trademark infringement and seeking to restrain Dabur from using the term.

A Retrospective Look: Capital Foods vs. Radiant Indus Chem

The dispute between Capital Foods and Radiant Indus Chem in 2022 offers valuable insights into the challenges of protecting descriptive trademarks in India. In Capital Foods Private Limited v. Radiant Indus Chem Private Limited, the Delhi High Court delved into whether the term “Schezwan Chutney” could qualify for trademark protection.

Arguments and Observations:

1. Capital Foods’ Claim: Capital Foods argued that it was the first to introduce “Schezwan Chutney” as a branded product in India. It claimed the term had acquired distinctiveness and was synonymous with its brand in the minds of consumers.
2. Radiant Indus Chem’s Defense: The defendant contended that “Schezwan Chutney” was a generic and descriptive term used to denote a type of condiment and, therefore, incapable of exclusive appropriation.
3. Court’s Observation: The Delhi High Court acknowledged that descriptive terms can acquire secondary meaning over time but noted that such protection is contingent on clear evidence of consumer association between the term and the plaintiff’s brand.

Outcome: The court provided interim relief to Capital Foods by restraining Radiant Indus Chem from using deceptively similar packaging but did not grant exclusive rights over the term “Schezwan Chutney.” The judgment emphasized that trademarks rooted in descriptive or generic terms face a higher evidentiary threshold to establish distinctiveness.

The Current Context: Capital Foods vs. Dabur

Fast forward to 2024–2025, Capital Foods finds itself locked in another battle, this time against Dabur India Limited, a corporate giant with significant market presence. The stakes are even higher now, with Capital Foods seeking to assert its trademark over “Schezwan Chutney” against a major competitor.

Key Similarities:

1. Descriptive Nature of the Mark: Both disputes revolve around whether “Schezwan Chutney” is a descriptive term that can be monopolized.
2. Acquisition of Distinctiveness: In both cases, Capital Foods has argued that its extensive use and marketing of the term have resulted in distinctiveness.

Key Differences:

1. Scale of Opposition: While Radiant Indus Chem was a relatively smaller entity, Dabur is a formidable opponent with considerable resources to challenge Capital Foods’ claims.
2. Consumer Impact: The Dabur case highlights a broader issue of consumer confusion, given the similar packaging and branding adopted by Dabur for its product.

Legal Context and Framework: The Trade Marks Act, 1999, serves as the cornerstone of both disputes. Section 9 of the Act prohibits the registration of marks that are descriptive of the goods or services unless they have acquired distinctiveness. Section 29 addresses infringement, emphasizing consumer confusion and the likelihood of association with the registered trademark.

The case brings into focus several key aspects of trademark law:

1. Descriptiveness vs. Distinctiveness: Under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, descriptive terms that directly refer to the quality or characteristics of goods are generally not registrable unless they have acquired distinctiveness through extensive use. The court will need to assess whether ‘Schezwan Chutney’ has attained such distinctiveness in the minds of consumers.
2. Generic Terms: Generic terms, which are common names for products or services, cannot be protected as trademarks. The determination of whether ‘Schezwan Chutney’ is generic will be pivotal in this case.
3. Passing Off: To establish passing off, Capital Foods must demonstrate that it has goodwill in the mark, that Dabur’s use constitutes misrepresentation, and that such use is causing or is likely to cause damage to Capital Foods’ goodwill.

Judicial Approach: In the Dabur case, the Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained Dabur from using the term “Schezwan Chutney” while also entertaining Dabur’s counter-petition seeking the cancellation of Capital Foods’ trademark. This approach reflects a balanced judicial attempt to prevent immediate consumer confusion while addressing the larger question of registrability.

A Comparative Analysis

The two cases underscore the evolving judicial attitudes toward descriptive marks and the role of secondary meaning in trademark disputes.

1. Threshold for Distinctiveness: The earlier Radiant Indus Chem case highlighted the high bar for proving distinctiveness in descriptive marks. The Dabur case builds on this by examining whether Capital Foods’ marketing efforts over the years have transformed “Schezwan Chutney” into a source identifier rather than a product descriptor.
2. Market Dynamics: The 2022 case was largely contained within a specific market segment. In contrast, the ongoing Dabur dispute has broader implications, given the scale of both companies and the growing consumer awareness of the product category.
3. Legal and Commercial Implications: The Radiant Indus Chem case served as a precedent for interim relief but did not resolve the core issue of descriptive trademarks. The Dabur case, with its focus on competitive practices and consumer confusion, may result in more robust guidelines for resolving such disputes.

What Legal Arguments could be made? 

Capital Foods’ Position:

1. Trademark Infringement: Capital Foods contends that Dabur’s use of ‘Schezwan Chutney’ constitutes infringement of its registered trademark, potentially causing consumer confusion and diluting its brand identity.
2. Passing Off: The company argues that Dabur’s product packaging emphasizes ‘Schezwan Chutney’ prominently, which could mislead consumers into associating Dabur’s product with Capital Foods, amounting to passing off.
3. Investment and Goodwill: Capital Foods highlights its significant investment in marketing and protecting the ‘Schezwan Chutney’ trademark, claiming that Dabur’s actions exploit the goodwill established by Capital Foods.
4. Precedent’s Protection- Court has in the similar case of Capital Foods v. Radiant Indus Chem had provided interim relief to Capital Foods by restraining Radiant Indus Chem from using deceptively similar packaging could be held to its aid. While the court did not grant exclusive rights over the term “Schezwan Chutney” to capital foods earlier, now may finally see the need to do so.

Dabur’s Defense:

1. Generic and Descriptive Term: Dabur argues that ‘Schezwan Chutney’ is a generic and descriptive term referring to a type of condiment, and thus, cannot be monopolized as a trademark by any single entity.
2. Invalid Trademark Registration: Dabur has filed a petition seeking the cancellation of Capital Foods’ trademark registration, asserting that the term lacks distinctiveness and should not have been granted exclusive rights.
3. Fair Use: The company maintains that its use of ‘Schezwan Chutney’ is in good faith to describe the nature of its product, which is permissible under trademark law’s fair Judicial Precedents.

Indian courts have previously dealt with disputes involving descriptive terms:

• In Marico Limited v. Agro Tech Foods Limited, the Bombay High Court held that the term ‘LOW ABSORB’ was descriptive of the product’s qualities and could not be monopolized.
• In Neon Laboratories Ltd. v. Medical Technologies Ltd., the Supreme Court emphasized that descriptive terms can be protected only if they have acquired a secondary meaning associated with the plaintiff’s goods or services.

International Comparisons and Broader Implications

Trademark law across jurisdictions grapples with the tension between protecting brand identities and preventing monopolies over common terms. In the United States, the Abercrombieclassification system distinguishes between generic, descriptive, suggestive, arbitrary, and fanciful marks, offering descriptive terms protection only upon proving acquired distinctiveness. Similarly, in the European Union, descriptive marks must demonstrate “distinctive character” through substantial use.

The Dabur case could prompt Indian courts to adopt more nuanced frameworks for adjudicating disputes involving descriptive terms. This would not only clarify the legal position but also provide businesses with clearer guidelines for branding strategies.

Currently, The Delhi High Court has issued a notice to Dabur and scheduled the matter for further hearing. Dabur’s petition for cancellation of the trademark is also pending before the appropriate authority. The outcomes of these proceedings will have significant implications for both parties and the broader industry.

The trademark battles over “Schezwan Chutney” epitomize the complexities of balancing brand protection with fair competition. As Capital Foods and Dabur await a final verdict, the case serves as a cautionary tale for businesses seeking to trademark descriptive terms. While marketing efforts and consumer recognition play a crucial role, the inherent nature of the term and its association with the product category remain pivotal.

The ultimate decision in this case will likely influence the future of trademark law in India, particularly for industries reliant on descriptive branding. It also highlights the need for businesses to adopt innovative branding strategies that transcend generic or descriptive terminology, ensuring both legal sustainability and market differentiation.

Author: Apoorva Lamba, 2nd Year LLB. Student of Madhav Mahavidyalaya, Jiwaji University, Gwalior

Wish to read similar articles? Click the link to read more: https://jpassociates.co.in/delhi-high-court-grants-injunction-against-t-series-in-aashiqui-trademark-dispute/

Link to Delhi High Court’s website: https://delhihighcourt.nic.in