Capital Foods Private Limited v. Krs Multipro Private Limited & Anr.

CS(COMM) 1186/2025

The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Capital Foods Private Limited against Krs Multipro Private Limited. The suit involves allegations of trademark and copyright infringement concerning the popular brand 'SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY'. Based on a prima facie case, the court found that the Defendants' product packaging copied the Plaintiff's registered mark precisely, posing a risk of market confusion. Consequently, the Defendants were immediately restrained from using the infringing mark until the final hearing.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court - Orders
Case Number
CS(COMM) 1186/2025
Judge(s)
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

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 Foods Private Limited vs Krs Multipro Private Limited & Anr. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

trademarkCS(COMM) 447/2021

Om Logistics LtdvsSh Mahendra Pandey

The Delhi High Court issued an interim order in favor of Om Logistics Ltd, restraining Sh Mahendra Pandey and his associates from using the deceptively similar trade mark 'OM EXPRESS LOGISTICS'. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case regarding trademark infringement and passing off, given the long-standing reputation of 'OM LOGISTICS LTD.' and the similarity in the marks used by the defendant. This order allows the suit to proceed while protecting the established brand identity.

trademarkCS(COMM) 291/2024, I.A. 7808/2024, I.A. 7809/2024, I.A. 7810/2024, I.A. 7811/2024 & I.A. 7812/2024

Varun Chohpra & Anr.vsShyam Sunder Chopra Sons Huf & Ors

The Delhi High Court addressed a new suit filed by Varun Chohpra & Anr. against Shyam Sunder Chopra Sons Huf, which alleged trademark infringement concerning the 'NATRAJ' brand. The court noted that a similar matter was already pending in Bangalore. Before proceeding with summons, the court directed steps to ascertain the maintainability of the current suit due to the new cause of action. Consequently, notice was issued to the defendants for a returnable hearing.

trademarkCS(COMM) 612/2025

Mittal ElectronrcsvsShashi Kant Garg & Ors.

The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Mittal Electronrcs against Shashi Kant Garg & Ors. The court found that the defendants were using the identical registered trademark 'SUJATA' for allied and cognate goods, thereby infringing upon the plaintiff's established goodwill and reputation. Given the likelihood of consumer confusion and the irreparable loss to the plaintiff, the court restrained the defendants from using the mark until the final hearing.

trademarkCS(COMM) 200/2025

YC Electric VehiclevsBhuvneesh Kapoor Proprietor Of Two Friends Auto Electric Co.

The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of YC Electric Vehicle against Bhuvneesh Kapoor Proprietor Of Two Friends Auto Electric Co. The court found that the defendant's use of deceptively similar marks, such as 'YATRI' and 'SAHYATRI', constituted infringement of the plaintiff's renowned trademarks ('YATRI' and 'YC') and copyright associated with electric vehicles. This order provides immediate protection to YC Electric Vehicle while the main suit proceeds.

trademark(T)CMA(TM)/133/2023

Walgreen Co.vsThe Registrar of Trademarks

Walgreen Co. filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging the Registrar of Trademarks' refusal to register the mark 'Finest Nutrition' in Class 5. However, before the court could rule on the merits of the appeal, the appellant voluntarily submitted a memo requesting its withdrawal. Consequently, the Madras High Court dismissed the case as withdrawn without passing any order regarding costs.

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