Capital Food Private Limited v. Radiant Indus Chem Pvt. Ltd

CS(COMM) 379/2020

In this commercial suit concerning trademark infringement of 'SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY,' the Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff to introduce crucial subsequent evidence. The court ruled that the take-down notices and market surveys were necessary for a fair adjudication, despite the defendant's objections regarding late filing. This order allows the case to proceed with expanded evidentiary material.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court - Orders
Case Number
CS(COMM) 379/2020
Judge(s)
Amit Bansal

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in trademark matters before Delhi High Court - Orders. Understanding the court's reasoning in Capital Food Private Limited vs Radiant Indus Chem Pvt. Ltd is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

trademarkCS(COMM) 392/2025

Alkem Laboratories LimitedvsDr. Mariya Parvez & Ors.

The Delhi High Court addressed an application by Alkem Laboratories seeking to include a proposed defendant who had posted misleading content targeting its pharmaceutical products, PAN-D and PAN-40. Although the plaintiff initially sought to extend existing injunctions against this individual, the court noted that the impugned video had already been taken down. Consequently, the court dismissed the impleadment request but reaffirmed that the proposed defendant remains prohibited from using Alkem's 'PAN' family of marks in any videos, reserving the right for the plaintiff to seek further action if infringement recurs.

trademarkAIR1927ALL81

Swadeshi Mills Co., Ltd.vsJuggi Lal, Kamlapat Cotton Spinning And ...

The Allahabad High Court ruled in favor of Swadeshi Mills Co., Ltd., finding that the plaintiffs had successfully established a reputation for their cotton goods under the trade name 'kamalchap' through continuous use of specific lotus flower designs and impressions. The court granted a perpetual injunction against the defendants, restraining them from using colorable imitations of the marks. Furthermore, the defendants were ordered to remove all infringing marks from their stock and pay substantial damages to the plaintiffs.

trademark48-IA(L)-18951-2025

Sapat International Pvt LtdvsNiravi Consumer Llp And Ors.

This interim application addressed allegations of contempt against the defendants for allegedly violating a prior court order. The plaintiff claimed that despite undertaking not to use the 'Sapat' mark in advertising packaged tea, the respondents continued to use 'Sapat Tea' on cash receipts and invoices. The court found prima facie evidence suggesting the violation, noting that the use of 'Sapat Tea' on sales documents amounted to advertisement. Consequently, the matter was listed for further consideration to determine compliance with the solemn undertaking.

trademarkIA NO. GA/5/2023 [OLD NO CS/269/2022] In IP-COM/6/2025

Fox And Mandal And AnrvsSomabrata Mandal And Ors

This case involves an application filed by Fox And Mandal And Anr seeking to consolidate their civil suit (IP-COM/6/2025) with two other related proceedings, including a writ petition concerning trademark disputes. The core dispute revolves around rival claims over the partnership firm's mark 'Fox & Mandal'. However, the court rejected the consolidation request, finding that the current suit was stillborn and lacked sufficient material bearing to the issues in the other cases.

trademarkCS(COMM) 636/2023

M/S Tej Ram Dharam PaulvsSunder Lal Goyal & Anr.

The Delhi High Court accepted a compromise reached between the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 in their suit concerning intellectual property rights. The settlement mandates that Defendant No. 1 must suffer a decree of permanent injunction and undertake to withdraw specific trademark applications. The court formally decreed the suit based on these terms, effectively resolving the dispute through mutual agreement.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

Facing a trademark dispute?

Arctic's TM litigation team handles ~120 trademark matters per year across India, EU, and UK. From oppositions to infringement actions, we build winning arguments from precedent.

Talk to our TM team →

Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar trademark matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call