Tata vs Dabur Legal Battle: Schezwan Chutney Trademark Dispute Reaches High Court
Tata vs Dabur Legal Battle: A heated legal battle between Tata and Dabur over the trademark for "Schezwan Chutney" has reached the Delhi High Court. Here's everything you need to know about the dispute and its implications.

Tata vs Dabur Legal Battle: A legal dispute has erupted between two FMCG giants, Tata Group and Dabur India, over the use of the name "Schezwan Chutney." The case, involving claims of trademark infringement, has reached the Delhi High Court, which has now issued a notice to Dabur India based on Tata's complaint.
What is the Dispute About?
The issue revolves around the brand name "Schezwan Chutney". Tata Group's Capital Foods, the maker of the popular "Ching’s Schezwan Chutney", claims to hold the trademark registration for the name. Tata alleges that Dabur India has marketed its product using the same name, creating confusion among consumers.
Dabur’s Counterclaim
Dabur India has filed a petition against Tata’s trademark registration, arguing that the term "Schezwan Chutney" describes a product type and cannot be trademarked. In October 2024, Dabur also sought the cancellation of Capital Foods’ trademark registration for "Schezwan Chutney."
The case is set to be heard on February 5, 2025.
Capital Foods argues that it has heavily invested in branding "Ching’s Schezwan Chutney", making it a recognizable name in the market. The company claims Dabur’s "Schezwan 2024" product label prominently displays the term "Schezwan Chutney" in large letters, while reducing "2024" to create consumer confusion.
This is not the first time a trademark dispute has made headlines in India
Burger King Case: A Pune-based hotel was found guilty of using the Burger King name illegally, resulting in its closure.
Mahindra vs Indigo: Indigo Airlines challenged Mahindra’s "XUV 6E" EV name for similarity, leading Mahindra to slightly alter its branding.
Trademark disputes highlight the importance of intellectual property rights in India’s competitive FMCG sector.
The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for companies looking to trademark generic-sounding product names.