The legal wrangling over “Schezwan Chutney” between Capital Foods and Dabur has sparked a spicier legal tussle that calls into question certain peculiarities of branding within the food industry. It highlights not only that an intense competition is underway for winning a significant share within the Indian condiment market, but perhaps more interestingly raises questions about trademark rights and use of descriptive words in branding.
Background
The dispute began when Dabur India launched its own Schezwan Chutney, under its popular Ching’s brand in 2024. In the same year, Capital Foods-that had been selling its version of Schezwan Chutney since 2012, soon sued Dabur. The crux of Capital Foods’ argument is that it has invested over ₹273 crores in advertising and marketing its Schezwan Chutney-it is almost synonymous with its brand identity, spicing it in the minds of consumers.
In October 2024, Dabur filed a petition for the cancellation of the trademark registration from the Trademarks Registry claiming it had become generic; in its view, it only constituted a descriptive term to denote a kind of sauce and not a distinct name of origin. The debate thus headed for a massive legal standoff to decide whether it constituted a distinctive trademark, or it’s simply an all-this condiment.
Legal Proceedings
The arguments available from both of the contesting parties turn out to be quite intriguing. Capital Foods averred that the use of the same name by Dabur would operate on the minds of consumers as a possible affiliation or endorsement by the two products. They accused Dabur of deliberately suppressing its brand name on the packaging while overtly displaying “Schezwan Chutney”-which, they argued, would confuse a buyer.
Dabur pleaded that Schezwan Chutney does not belong to Capital Foods but was a generic description for a class of sauces combining elements of Szechuan cuisine with Indian chutney traditions. No company should have a monopoly over a term that many consumers recognize as indicative of a flavour profile rather than a particular brand.
The High Court of Delhi, in an order dated January 13, 2023, noted that “Schezwan Chutney” might be too descriptive a term to warrant trademark protection. After Capital Foods had appealed the judgment, a Division Bench of the High Court granted interim relief, opining that the phrase had acquired secondary significance in light of their significant marketing efforts and sales figures.
The overall size of the Schezwan sauce market in India is very large, with estimates ranging from about ₹200 crores, while Capital Foods has an outstanding market share of 88%. The simultaneous rise of different varieties in the Indian palate turned out to be a blessing in disguise for the Schezwan flavours. The newly emerged “Desi Chinese” cuisine perfectly matched Indian flavours to culinary techniques from China. According to Capital Foods, the company has actually pioneered a category by introducing Schezwan Chutney as an independent product line, developing a consumer base from scratch.
Branding Implications
Several issues arise with the branding strategies of the food industry. The patenting of a descriptive word has great machinery on market environment and competition. If Dabur wins it good, it will act like a substratum for other companies to risk the usage of descriptive words as per liberty without infringing patent rights. Otherwise, if Capital Foods is able to gain hold of trademark protection, it sets itself above the rest and is recognizable as the brand in the category of Schezwan Chutneys, which can be a precedent for other products whose names may need to be shielded from any generic usage.
Some customers favour Dabur, arguing that “Schezwan Chutney” should be free for all brands to use since it is just a generic name. It is claimed that the restrictive enforcement of such terms hinders competition and innovation. Some consumers support Capital Foods because of their long association with “Schezwan Chutney” and heavy investment in the brand. Concerns included confusion of the consumers and loss of market. Posts on social media show the loyalty for Ching’s, whereas there is this sense of betrayal for Dabur.
Conclusion
The verdict, still awaiting to play-out in a court hearing on February 5, 2025, will probably have a long-lasting effect, marking the way in which brands negotiate trademark registrations along with consumer perceptions, in an increasingly competitive market. Also, this case gives out a salient reminder that in food branding, flavours and identities would combine; sometimes to secure the right name, while perhaps equally important, to enable food marketers to formulate the perfect recipe. It is yet to be seen whether “Schezwan Chutney” would remain Capital Foods’ exclusive title or pass onto the public domain; one thing is for sure though, this spicy saga is far from finished.
Authors: Mahima Gupta, Smita Pandey & Nitya Sanghavi