"Schezwan Chutney" Trademark Infringement Petition

Abstract

This particular article analyses a trademark infringement case filed by the reputed company “Schezwan” against a condiment maker. A trademark is a legally registered symbol, word, phrase, design, or combination of these that distinguishes and identifies the goods or services of one firm or corporation from those of another. It is a type of intellectual property that grants the owner the exclusive right to use the mark in connection with their goods or services, as well as the right to prevent others from using a similar mark in a way that may cause consumer confusion. Trademark registration provides the owner with exclusive rights to use the mark in connection with the goods or services covered by the registration, and the ability to enforce those rights through legal action against others who may infringe upon the mark. Trademarks can be valuable assets for businesses, as they can help establish brand recognition, reputation, and goodwill among consumers, and can be used to protect a company's unique identity and market position.

---

In the latest trademark infringement complaint, the Delhi High Court declined to grant an interim order prohibiting a condiment maker from utilizing Chings Secret's "Schezwan Chutney" trademark. In the January 11 decision by a single judge bench of Justice Navin Chawla, it was observed that the plaintiff's trademark 'Schezwan chutney' was only an expressive term and not something exclusive created by the plaintiff.

The case involved a dispute between Chings and a small food company called Capital Foods Pvt Ltd. The latter had been selling a similar product as the plaintiff under the name "Smith & Jones Schezwan Chutney," which the plaintiff submitted was a violation of its trademark for "Chings Secret Schezwan Chutney." The plaintiff claimed that "Schezwan" was an essential term of their product and that the use of the same by the respondent company was likely to cause confusion amongst their targeted audience.

Contrary to Chings' claims, the court determined that the name "Schezwan" was purely evocative and did not meet the requirements for trademark protection. The Sichuan province of China is home to a cuisine known as "Schezwan," which the court noted has recently gained popularity in India. The said phrase is frequently used to describe hot sauces and other condiments used in Schezwan-style foods.

The HC concluded that the combination of the two words did not change the words' descriptive nature because they continued to convey the nature and quality of the in-question product. They actually become descriptive when combined.

The court also recognized that Chings was not the first company to refer to Indian cuisine goods as "Schezwan" in marketing terms. There are other companies that market sauces and chutneys in the Schezwan style, some of which have been doing so for decades. The Hon'ble judge came to the conclusion that no one brand could monopolize the term because it had become a popular descriptor for a particular kind of hot sauce.

According to the HC, "Tamarind Chutney" or "Tomato Chutney" should likewise receive similar protection if the plaintiff's mark receives protection because they are also made up of English and Hindi words.

The court's decision is noteworthy because it defines the boundaries of descriptive phrases' trademark protection. The goal of trademark law is to safeguard distinctive marks that attract and enables customers to trace the origin of a certain good or service to its founding company. On the other hand, descriptive phrases are not eligible for trademark protection because they do not set one product apart from another.

The court's decision emphasizes the need to select distinctive and unique trademarks. A company may have trouble protecting its rights from rivals that use similar names if it picks a generic or descriptive term as its trademark.

With its Schezwan Chutney product, Chings had established a solid reputation, but the company chose a trademark that was too generic to be upheld. As a result of the court's decision, Chings will need to use additional marketing strategies, such as branding and advertising, to set its product apart from that of its rivals.

The Delhi High Court's decision, in this case, serves as a general reminder that trademarks should be carefully chosen and should be distinctive enough to be legally protectable. The court's ruling also emphasizes the necessity for companies to stay up-to-date on modifications to trademark law and to consult experts when selecting and enforcing the same in such a way that no discrepancies arise in the furtherance of these businesses.

The Delhi High Court's decision, in this case, serves as a general reminder that trademarks should be carefully chosen and should be distinctive enough to be legally protected. The court's ruling also emphasizes the necessity for companies to stay up to date on modifications to trademark law and to consult experts when selecting and enforcing the same in such a way that no discrepancies arise in the furtherance of these businesses.

Image Source: http://surl.li/hwyee

*This article is authored by Aarzu Singh & Braj Bhushan, Students from Symbiosis Law School, Noida and reviewed by Suryatej Singh Tanwar, Student from Symbiosis Law School, Noida.