Court Rules "HOT MIX" as Dominant and Distinctive Feature of Plaintiff's Registered Mark, Restrains Defendant from Using Identical Expression for Namkeen Products
In a significant ruling dated October 28, 2026, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, confirmed an interim injunction restraining M/s Jabsons Foods Pvt. Ltd. from using the trademark "HOT MIX" on its namkeen products. The decision came in the suit filed by Mr. Sunit Shah, proprietor of M/s Shah Namkeen, who claimed infringement and passing off in relation to his registered trademark "SHAH HOT MIX (LABEL)."
The plaintiff, engaged in the manufacture and marketing of namkeen and allied goods since 1977, holds a valid registration for the composite mark "SHAH HOT MIX (LABEL)" under Class 30 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The registration, valid until 2032, includes a disclaimer that no exclusive rights are claimed over the descriptive matter appearing on the label. However, the Court clarified that this disclaimer did not extend to the phrase "HOT MIX," which was held to be the essential, dominant, and memorable feature of the plaintiff's mark.
The dispute arose when the defendant, an established snack manufacturer with a legacy dating back to 1910, introduced namkeen packets branded as "JABSONS HOT MIX" in October 2023. Despite its long-standing presence in the snack market, the defendant did not have any prior use or registration of the "HOT MIX" mark before this date. The plaintiff promptly filed the suit upon discovering the defendant's use, asserting that "HOT MIX" was a coined and distinctive expression, not merely descriptive, and had acquired secondary meaning associated exclusively with the plaintiff's goods.
During the proceedings, the defendant contended that "HOT MIX" was descriptive and common to the trade, thus not entitled to exclusive protection. It relied on the disclaimer in the plaintiff's registration and the presence of other third-party users of similar marks. The defendant also argued that the dominant feature of the marks was the house marks "SHAH" and "JABSONS" respectively, and that the differences in packaging and overall get-up prevented any confusion.
Rejecting these contentions, the Court applied the anti-dissection rule and the dominant feature test, concluding that "HOT MIX" dominated the commercial impression of both marks. The defendant's adoption of the identical phrase in the same prominent manner on identical goods was likely to cause confusion among consumers. The Court noted that namkeen is a commonly purchased everyday item, often bought by asking for the product name rather than scrutinizing packaging details, thus increasing the likelihood of deception.
Further, the Court distinguished "HOT MIX" from generic or descriptive terms by observing that it is not a recognized dictionary term for any variety of namkeen, nor had the defendant proven substantial use of the phrase by other traders. The plaintiff's long, continuous use spanning decades, coupled with multiple litigations against third-party infringers, established a prima facie case of goodwill and acquired distinctiveness.
The Court also examined the defendant's allegation of suppression of material facts by the plaintiff during the grant of the ex parte injunction and found no merit in the claim. The plaintiff had adequately disclosed the disclaimer, registration status, and prior litigation history.
Balancing the equities, the Court held that the defendant's continued use of "HOT MIX" would cause irreparable harm to the plaintiff by diluting its goodwill and distinctiveness. The injunction was therefore confirmed, restraining the defendant and its associates from using the mark "HOT MIX" or any deceptively similar mark on namkeen or allied goods until final adjudication.
However, the Court clarified that the defendant remains free to use its house mark "JABSONS" and the individual dictionary words "hot" and "mix" in their descriptive sense, provided that "HOT MIX" is not used as a trade name or mark for its products.
This ruling reinforces the principle that a composite mark's dominant feature, even if composed of common words, may be entitled to protection when it acquires distinctiveness through long use. It also underscores the limitations of disclaimers in registrations, which do not negate rights acquired by prior user.
The suit will continue for final determination, with the next hearing scheduled for December 7, 2026.
Bottom Line:
Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Interim injunction in infringement and passing off action - Plaintiff, registered proprietor of SHAH HOT MIX (LABEL) and prior user of HOT MIX for namkeen, held entitled to injunction against defendant's use of JABSONS HOT MIX - Court held HOT MIX to be the essential and dominant feature of plaintiff's registered label; disclaimer did not defeat rights acquired by long user; defendant failed to prove HOT MIX was common to trade or merely descriptive; use of identical expression for identical goods likely to cause confusion.
Statutory provision(s):
Trade Marks Act, 1999 Sections 17, 29(2)(b), 30(2)(a), 31(1), 34; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Order 39 Rules 1, 2, 4
Mr. Sunit Shah v. Jabsons Foods Pvt. Ltd., (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 3004939
