For more intellectual property updates follow our WHATSAPP CHANNEL and SUNS LEGAL | LinkedIn

Introduction

In Sunit Shah v. Jabsons Foods Pvt. Ltd., CS(COMM) 641/2024, the Delhi High Court held on 28 October 2026 that, prima facie, HOT MIX is at most suggestive rather than descriptive of namkeen and that, even if it were descriptive, it has come to denote the goods of Sunit Shah, proprietor of M/s Shah Namkeen. The Court confirmed its ex parte ad interim injunction of 2 August 2024 against Jabsons Foods Pvt. Ltd. (Jabsons).

Facts of the Case

According to the plaint, Sunit Shah (Shah) is the sole proprietor of M/s Shah Namkeen, which makes namkeen and other goods in Class 30. SHAH HOT MIX (LABEL) is registered under a certificate dated 20 July 2018, subject to the condition that he has “no exclusive right over the descriptive matter appearing on label”. His applications to register HOT MIX, claiming use since 1995, are, as per the record, under opposition.

According to Jabsons, it offers more than 270 snacking options under its house mark JABSONS. Its invoices refer to “Hot Mix” only from October 2023.

According to Shah, his salesperson found namkeen packets bearing HOT MIX and the house mark JABSONS in June 2024. He sued in July 2024 and sought an interim injunction (I.A. 35178/2024); the Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction on 2 August 2024, and Jabsons sought its vacation (I.A. 1561/2025). Shah’s earlier suit against Sunshine Food Products was dismissed on 12 August 2024, and his appeal is pending.

Argument in Favour

Shah argued that he conceived HOT MIX, adopted it first and has used it continuously, and that it is the dominant feature of his label. Though “hot” and “mix” have dictionary meanings separately, the combination has none and is a coined expression deserving the highest protection. According to a Trade Marks search report, no one else holds a subsisting registration or pending application for HOT MIX in Class 30, and long use has given it a secondary meaning.

Jabsons, he said, adopted the identical expression for identical goods in the same manner, so that adding JABSONS does not alter the overall impression, and the case falls within Sections 29(2) and 29(6) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999; he also relied on Section 34. He said Jabsons offered no explanation for its adoption, which he called dishonest. He relied on, among others, S. Syed Mohideen v. P. Sulochana Bai ((2016) 2 SCC 683).

Argument Against

Jabsons argued that Shah obtained the order of 2 August 2024 by misrepresentation and suppression of material facts. On merits, it said the registration denies exclusive rights over descriptive matter, that HOT MIX describes a spicy namkeen, and that Section 30(2)(a) protects its use.

Relying on Pernod Ricard India (P) Ltd. v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1701), Jabsons argued that SHAH and JABSONS are the source-identifying features while HOT MIX merely denotes the product type, and that the house marks rule out confusion. A descriptive mark, it said, is weak, needs proof of secondary meaning and is used by other manufacturers. It also relied on Godfrey Phillips India Ltd. v. Girnar Food & Beverages (P) Ltd. ((2004) 5 SCC 257), among others.

Court’s Decision

On suppression, the Court cited Arunima Baruah v. Union of India ((2007) 6 SCC 120), under which only suppression of a material fact disentitles a party to discretionary relief. Jabsons made only a general allegation, and Shah had disclosed the disclaimer and the pending Sunshine suit; no suppression of a material fact was made out. The Court held that, even on the later claimed date of 1995, Shah’s use precedes Jabsons’ by nearly three decades; which date is correct is for trial.

The Court held, prima facie, that the condition in the registration cannot be read as a disclaimer of HOT MIX, as it does not name the expression and a Trade Marks Registry official examined in the Sunshine suit is recorded to have deposed that it was imposed on “Namkeen” and “since 1977”. Citing Registrar of Trade Marks v. Ashok Chandra Rakhit Ltd. ((1955) 1 SCC 655), it added that a disclaimer does not affect rights acquired by user.

Applying the “Imagination Test” and the “Competitors’ Need Test”, the Court held that HOT MIX, whose words each carry several meanings and which does not tell a buyer what the product is, is “at the highest” suggestive and not descriptive. Even if HOT MIX were descriptive, Godfrey Phillips allows protection on secondary meaning, and the Court found prima facie that it has come to denote Shah’s goods, subject to trial. It distinguished Jabsons’ other authorities on their facts.

Jabsons’ plea that others use HOT MIX rested on photographs of third-party packs. Citing GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Horizon Bioceuticals Pvt. Ltd. (2023 SCC OnLine Del 2065), the Court held that such a plea requires proof of substantial use, the extent of trade and a threat to distinctiveness, which was lacking.

On infringement, the Court noted that both packs show HOT MIX in large, bold capitals at the centre, for identical goods and the same consumers. It held that greater weight may be given to a dominant feature, and that the added house mark and differences in get-up are of no consequence where the essential feature is reproduced. It was therefore of the prima facie view that there was infringement under Section 29(2)(b).

Section 30(2)(a) was held unavailable, since it protects only descriptive use and not use as a trade mark: HOT MIX is the largest text on Jabsons’ pack, and its own reply states that its trade mark is JABSONS HOT MIX.

The Court also found a prima facie case of passing off, noting under S. Syed Mohideen that a prior user’s rights are superior even to a later registrant’s. Jabsons’ adoption, it said, “does not appear to be honest”: it is no newcomer, adopted HOT MIX only in October 2023 after selling “mix” variants under other names for over fifteen years, when Shah’s label had been on the Register since 2018, and offered no explanation. On the balance of convenience, the injunction leaves Jabsons’ house mark and namkeen sales untouched and requires only a different name for one of its numerous products, whereas Shah would suffer irreparable injury.

Conclusion

The Court confirmed the ad interim injunction till final adjudication and restrained Jabsons and those acting on its behalf from dealing in namkeen, snacks or any other allied or cognate goods under the mark HOT MIX, or any other mark or label identical with or deceptively similar to SHAH HOT MIX (LABEL), so as to result in infringement or passing off. It allowed I.A. 35178/2024 in those terms and dismissed I.A. 1561/2025. Jabsons may still use its house mark and the words “hot” or “mix” individually in their ordinary sense.

The observations are only prima facie, and the Court left the claimed dates of first use and the final determination of acquired distinctiveness to trial. Within that limit, the order shows how the Court approached a name made of ordinary words: HOT MIX was held at most suggestive, since its words together do not tell a buyer what the product is; the condition in the registration was held prima facie not to be a disclaimer of it; and an added house mark did not avoid infringement where the essential feature was reproduced.