Delhi HC Temporarily Restrains Use Of 'Schezwan Dipping Chutney' Mark In Ching's Secret Trademark Suit

The Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained Kishan Rameshbhai Kaswala, trading as K3 Masala, from dealing in products under the marks 'Schezwan Chutney' and 'Schezwan Dipping Chutney' in a trademark infringement suit filed by Capital Foods Private Limited, the maker of Ching's Secret products.

Justice Tushar Rao Gedela passed the ex-parte ad-interim injunction order on May 22 after observing that the defendant's products were deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark and that adoption of the mark was “clearly not honest or bonafide.”

Capital Foods, an associate of Tata Consumer Products Limited, told the court that it adopted the mark 'SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY' in 2012 and had used it continuously and extensively since then in relation to sauces, dips, and condiments sold under the Ching's Secret brand.

The company also relied on a January 2023 order of a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court which had noted that the mark had acquired secondary significance.

According to the plaintiff, it learnt in August 2025 that the defendant was manufacturing and selling products under the mark 'SCHEZWAN DIPPING CHUTNEY'. The plaintiff further alleged in April 2026 that similar products were also being sold under the house name 'Fruvanta', apart from products sold under the 'K3 Masala' and 'Green Piece' branding.

The plaintiff submitted that despite legal notices issued in August 2025, November 2025 and April 2026, the defendant did not respond.

Capital Foods argued that the insertion of the word 'DIPPING' between 'SCHEZWAN' and 'CHUTNEY' was merely an inconsequential change and described the matter as a “classic case of smart copying”.

Agreeing with the contention, the court observed, “Merely by using the word 'dipping' between the words 'Schezwan' and 'Chutney' would really not make such a distinction as to enable an unwary consumer with an average intelligence and imperfect recollection to be able to differentiate between the two products.”

The court further observed that brand names such as “K Masala”, “Green Piece” or “Fruvanta” appearing on the packaging would not sufficiently distinguish the defendant's products from those of the plaintiff.

The court also took note of the plaintiff's allegation that the defendant was selling Jain versions of the impugned products, similar to the plaintiff's own Jain variant, which according to the plaintiff showed that the defendant was closely tracking its product variations.

“The defendant appears to be riding the coattails of the plaintiff's immense reputation and substantial goodwill. This is bound to dilute the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff's trademark,” the court said.

Holding that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience lay in its favour, the court restrained the defendant, its agents, and distributors from dealing in the impugned products or any other deceptively similar mark.

The court also directed the defendant to place on record its books of accounts, invoices, sales memos and other documents relating to the allegedly infringing products in a sealed cover within six weeks from the date of service.

The matter is next listed before the court on November 17, 2026.