Dabur and Capital Foods Clash Over Trademark for 'Schezwan Chutney'

Introduction

The trademark dispute between Dabur India and Capital Foods has captured attention as the two giants clash over the rights to the term "Schezwan Chutney." This case highlights the complexities of trademark law, particularly when addressing terms with potential generic or descriptive significance.

The Dispute

Capital Foods, the company behind the popular "Ching's Schezwan Chutney" and part of the Tata Group, has filed a lawsuit against Dabur India, accusing them of using the name "Schezwan Chutney" deceptively. According to Capital Foods, they have heavily invested in promoting their product, which has achieved widespread recognition and distinctiveness in the market.

Capital Foods contends that Dabur’s packaging design emphasises "Schezwan Chutney" prominently, overshadowing its own brand name. They argue that this creates confusion among consumers, misleading them into associating Dabur's product with the "Ching's" brand. The company further claims that the term "Schezwan Chutney" has acquired secondary significance, making it eligible for protection under trademark law. Consequently, Capital Foods has sought the Delhi High Court's intervention to prohibit Dabur from using the term.

Dabur’s Defense

In its defense, Dabur argues that "Schezwan Chutney" is a generic and descriptive term that denotes a specific type of condiment, making it unsuitable for trademark exclusivity. Dabur has petitioned the Trademarks Registry to revoke Capital Foods’ trademark registration for the term, asserting that generic expressions cannot be monopolised by any single entity.

Legal Proceedings

The Delhi High Court has issued a notice to Dabur in response to Capital Foods' petition. The court is set to hear the matter on February 5, when it will decide whether Dabur's use of the term constitutes trademark infringement or whether "Schezwan Chutney" qualifies as a generic term that is not eligible for exclusive ownership.

Conclusion

This case underscores the challenges of balancing brand identity with generic terminology in trademark law. The outcome will not only affect the parties involved but may also set a precedent for how courts interpret generic versus distinctive terms in trademark disputes.