The Division Bench of Delhi High Court opined that the mark of the Appellant i.e., “Schezwan Chutney” has acquired secondary significance, considering the advertisement and sales figure. Hence, the order of the Learned Single Judge refusing to grant an interim injunction to restrain the Respondent-Defendant from using the mark “Schezwan Chutney” was stayed.
Brief Facts:
The Learned Single Judge refused to grant an interim injunction to restrain the Respondent-Defendant from using the mark “Schezwan Chutney”. Hence, the present appeal has been preferred by the Appellant-Plaintiff.
Contentions of the Appellant – Plaintiff:
It was contended that the Respondent-Defendant had adopted the registered trademark of the Appellant along with the colour-combination, stylization, get-up, trade dress and copyright in the advertising material of the product.
It was submitted that by the time Respondent-Defendant asserted to have adopted the mark “Schezwan Chutney”, the Appellant had already invested huge money for the promotion of the said name as a brand and had sales to the tune of Rs. 77 crores.
Contentions of the Respondent-Defendant:
It was alleged that the said mark indicates the kind, quality, purpose, and characteristics of the goods and hence, there was no trademark infringement. It was submitted that the mark lacked distinctiveness and therefore can only be considered a generic mark.
Observations of the Court:
It was observed that prima facie it could be inferred that the Respondent wanted to ride on the name and reputation of the Appellant as everything was blindly copied from the Appellant.
Further, injunction as a remedy has been provided to be granted in matters like the present one. Examining the advertisement and sales figure of the Appellant, the High Court opined that the mark of the Appellant has acquired secondary significance.
The decision of the Court:
Based on the above-mentioned findings, the order of the Learned Single Judge was accordingly stayed.
Case Title: Capital Foods Pvt. Ltd. V. Radiant Indus Chem Pvt. Ltd.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manmohan, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Saurabh Banerjee
Case No: FAO(OS) (COMM) 16/2023
Advocates for Appellant: Advs. Ms. Nancy Roy, Ms. Prakriti Varshney, Ms. Aastha Kakkar, Mr. Prashant, Ms. Nida Khanam, Ms. Ananya Chugh, Ms. Manjira
Advocates for Respondent: Advs. Mr. Hemant Singh, Ms. Mamta Rani Jha, Mr. Abhijeet Rastogi, Mr. Shakti Nair
Read Order @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
