Capital Foods (P) Ltd. v. Radiant Indus Chem (P) Ltd.

Capital Foods (P) Ltd. v. Radiant Indus Chem (P) Ltd.

2023 SCC OnLine Del 118,

Decided on 11-1-2023 

Facts of case 

The plaintiff was a prominent food company in India that manufactured and marketed a wide range of food products, including dips, spreads, sauces, noodles, soups, pastes, dressings, and ready-to-eat food items. They had coined and independently invented the trade mark "SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY" for their dips and spreads. On the other hand, the defendant was engaged in the manufacture and sale of food products such as jams, culinary sauces, Chinese sauces, mayonnaise, pickles, etc. The defendant argued that their products were sold under the trade marks "MRS. FOODRITE," "MEAL TIME," and "MRS. RITE SPICE," for which they had obtained trade mark registrations for various classes.

In 2020, the plaintiff discovered that the defendant was selling and offering for sale their product named "MRS. FOODRITE SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY" on an e-commerce website www.amazon.in. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant's product had an identical mark to their own trade mark "SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY," indicating that the defendant had made every effort to copy or imitate the plaintiff's trade mark.

Submissions on behalf of the Plaintiff

The plaintiff argues that there are similarities between their product and the defendant's product. Specifically, the defendant has used the plaintiff's coined and registered trademark "SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY". The defendant's product, which is labeled "SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY", has packaging that is deceptively and confusingly similar to the plaintiff's packaging. The overall appearance of the defendant's product, including the packaging style, color scheme, and placement of "SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY" on the label, has been copied from the plaintiff's product. The plaintiff also found another product on the defendant's page, "SZECHUAN CHUTNEY", which is identical to the plaintiff's registered trademark. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant did not make any effort to create their own marketing and advertising content and instead copied the plaintiff's copyrighted material. The adoption of the "SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY" or "SZECHUAN CHUTNEY" marks infringes on the plaintiff's registered trademark and the defendant is also guilty of passing off the goods as the plaintiff's.

Submissions on behalf of the Defendant

The defendant argued that they had been using their mark "MRS. FOODRITE" to sell their Schezwan Chutney products since 2016 without interruption. They claimed that the plaintiff could not claim exclusive rights to the term "SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY" as it was a descriptive term that referred to the type, quality, character, and geographical origin of the product. The defendant also argued that the plaintiff had been wrongly granted registration for the mark. Additionally, they stated that the competing products were differentiated by their respective trademarks, which were "CHING'S SECRET" for the plaintiff and "MRS. FOODRITE" for the defendant. Finally, the defendant pointed out that there were other third-party sellers who were also marketing their products under the mark "SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY."

Courts Judgement

The case in question involved a legal dispute over whether the term "SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY" was distinctive enough to warrant trademark protection for a particular product. After considering various factors, the court ultimately concluded that the term was not unique enough to be granted trademark protection, as it was merely descriptive of the type of chutney being sold. However, the court did note that the use of the house marks "Ching's" and "MRS. FOODRITE" helped to differentiate the source of the product, and that the defendant's adoption of the term "SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY" was not done in a dishonest or misleading manner. Despite the rejection of the plaintiff's claim of infringement or passing off, the court did grant an ad interim injunction against the defendant, which prohibited them from using either "SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY" or "SZECHUAN CHUTNEY" while the lawsuit was pending.

Conclusion:

In summary, while the court ruled that the term "SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY" was not distinctive enough to warrant trademark protection on its own, it did acknowledge the importance of the house marks "Ching's" and "MRS. FOODRITE" in distinguishing the source of the products. The defendant's use of the term "SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY" was found to not be dishonest or misleading. Despite this decision, an ad interim injunction was granted against the defendant, prohibiting them from using either "SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY" or "SZECHUAN CHUTNEY" while the case was pending. This decision reflects the court's attempt to balance the interests of both parties and prevent any potential harm or confusion to consumers while the legal proceedings continued.