Existence Of Other Infringers Is No Defence To Trademark Infringement: Delhi High Court Confirms Injunction Against Jabsons' Foods Over "Hot Mix" Namkeen
|The Court prima facie held that the addition of house mark “JABSONS” makes no difference in infringement; said disclaimer condition on the registration does not defeat protection of the label’s dominant feature
The Delhi High Court reiterating that the presence of other third-party violators in the market does not grant a later entrant a free pass to misappropriate a proprietary mark, has firmly held that the existence of other potential infringers provides no valid defence in a trademark infringement action, while confirming its ex parte ad interim injunction against Jabsons Foods Pvt. Ltd. over the use of the mark 'Hot Mix' for namkeen.
The Court noted that the addition of the house mark “JABSONS” and differences in get-up make no difference in an infringement action, since “HOT MIX”, the dominant feature of the plaintiff’s registered label “SHAH HOT MIX”, was reproduced in its entirety, in the same manner and for identical goods. It held that the general disclaimer condition on the registration does not identify “HOT MIX” as descriptive matter and does not bear on whether the marks, compared as wholes, are deceptively similar. It also held that the defendant failed to prove the expression is common to the trade. It allowed the plaintiff’s application and dismissed the defendant’s application to vacate the injunction.
A Bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav observed, “…The mere filing of photographs of the packaging of a few third parties, without any material as to the extent of their use or their position in the market, is insufficient to hold that HOT MIX is common to the trade. The existence of other infringers, if any, is no defence available to the defendant. The defendant, on its own showing, is a large manufacturer offering more than 270 products and supplying its goods across several States, and its adoption of the impugned mark poses a far greater threat to the distinctiveness of the plaintiff’s mark than that posed by other users”.
“….HOT MIX stands on a footing entirely different from expressions such as “Aloo Bhujia”, “Moong Dal” or “Navratan Mix”, cited by the defendant, which are names by which CS(COMM) 641/2024 Page 19 of 34 traditional preparations have been known for generations, and which identify the ingredients or the nature of the preparation”, it said.
Advocate Umesh Mishra appeared for the plaintiff and Advocate Sandeep Ranjan appeared for the defendant.
The plaintiff, Sunit Shah, proprietor of Shah Namkeen, claims use of the SHAH HOT MIX label since 1977 and holds Registration No. 2309592 in Class 30, valid till April 3, 2032. His applications for the word mark HOT MIX and related device marks, filed on March 9, 2022, are under opposition. He sued Jabsons Foods Pvt. Ltd. after learning in June 2024 that it was selling namkeen under “HOT MIX” with its house mark “JABSONS”. The Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction on August 2, 2024, and framed issues on March 30, 2026. The plaintiff’s application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC and the defendant’s application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC were decided together.
The defendant alleged suppression of material facts, relied on the registration condition barring exclusive rights in “descriptive matter”, and argued that “HOT MIX” is descriptive, used by others, and protected under Sections 17(2)(b) and 30(2)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Court found no suppression of any material fact. It held that the condition does not identify “HOT MIX” as descriptive, and that a disclaimer does not bear on whether the marks, compared as wholes, are deceptively similar. Applying the imagination and competitors’ need tests, it held the expression suggestive. It found that the defendant had sold many “mix” variants for over fifteen years without using it, and had adopted it only in October 2023. Photographs of third-party packs, without proof of the extent of use, were insufficient to show the expression is common to the trade.
On infringement, the Court held that the plaintiff’s essential feature was reproduced entirely, and that colour scheme, get-up and the house mark “JABSONS” were of no consequence. Namkeen is an everyday item, often bought by name in 30-gram packs priced at ₹10. The Section 30(2)(a) defence failed because the defendant uses “HOT MIX” as a trade mark, as its own reply admits. The Court also found a prima facie case of passing off, dishonest adoption, no delay by the plaintiff and a balance of convenience in the plaintiff’s favour.
“…a disclaimer operates only to limit the rights which flow from the registration, and does not detract from the rights which the proprietor may have acquired by user...”, the Bench said.
“The individual words HOT and MIX are each capable of several meanings. The word HOT may denote temperature, pungency or even popularity, whereas MIX may refer to a mixture of any conceivable kind. The combination does not, by itself, convey to a purchaser what the product is, what it is a mixture of, or how it is prepared. Its application to a packet of namkeen requires a degree of imagination. At the highest, therefore, HOT MIX is suggestive, and not descriptive, of the plaintiff’s goods. The juxtaposition of the two words, for use as the name of a namkeen, was the plaintiff’s own idea, much like the combination of WOW with the name of a food item in Wow Momo Foods (P) Ltd. (supra)”, the Bench noted further.
The Court, accordingly, restrained the defendant from manufacturing, selling, advertising or dealing in namkeen or allied goods under “HOT MIX” or any deceptively similar mark. It clarified that the defendant may use its house mark and the words “hot” and “mix” individually in their ordinary sense, if “HOT MIX” is not used as a name, mark or label. It stated that its observations are prima facie and listed the matter before the Joint Registrar on December 7, 2026.
Cause Title: Sunit Shah, Proprietor of M/s. Shah Namkeen v. M/s. Jabsons Foods Pvt. Ltd. (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:9547)
Appearances:
Plaintiff: Umesh Mishra, Divyanshu Rai, Advocates.
Respondent: Sandeep Ranjan, Bhuvi Mishra and Navin Kumar, Advocates.