Chur Chur Naan Trademark Dispute: Delhi High Court Ruling on Generic Descriptive Food Terms

Introduction

The bustling streets of Delhi are globally celebrated for their culinary heritage, where iconic eateries draw both gourmands and everyday consumers. However, when popular street food terminologies transition from local menus to the trademark registry, they often spark intense legal battles over brand monopoly. The High Court of Delhi addressed this intersection of culinary culture and intellectual property law in a significant trademark dispute involving the famous street food delicacy, “Chur Chur Naan”. The ruling carefully defines the boundaries of trademark enforcement by addressing whether common conversational descriptors of food can be monopolised by a single registered proprietor.

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiff, Parveen Kumar Jain, operates a food outlet in the Paharganj area of Delhi, specialising in traditional Indian flatbreads. The Plaintiff secured statutory trademark registrations for the marks “Chur Chur Naan” and “Amritsari Chur Chur Naan” under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Additionally, the Plaintiff claimed proprietary rights over the expression “Paharganj Ke Mashoor Amritsari Naan”. Seeking to enforce these registered rights, the Plaintiff filed a commercial suit in the High Court of Delhi seeking a permanent injunction, copyright protection, damages for passing off, and a rendition of accounts against the Defendants, Rajan Seth and others, who operated a competing outlet in the same locality.

The defendants utilised the expressions “Paharganj Ke Chur Chur Naan” and “Amritsari Chur Chur Naan” for their culinary business. The Plaintiff moved an interlocutory application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking an ad-interim temporary injunction to restrain the Defendants from using these names. At the initial stage of the proceedings, on April 25, 2019, the Court appointed a Local Commissioner to investigate and submit a report regarding the market usage of the disputed terms by the Defendants as well as other third-party food vendors. The Defendants actively opposed the application, seeking rectification of the Plaintiff’s registrations on the ground that the terms lacked basic distinctiveness.

Dispute Before the Court

The core legal and factual question before the Court was whether the Plaintiff, by virtue of holding statutory trademark registrations, could claim an exclusive monopoly over the terms “Chur Chur Naan” and “Amritsari Chur Chur Naan” and restrain competing local food outlets from using them.

The Plaintiff contended that because his trademarks were registered, he enjoyed an absolute, exclusive statutory right to use and protect them under Sections 28 and 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Plaintiff further argued that the Defendants were legally estopped from claiming that the term “Chur Chur Naan” was generic or descriptive because the Defendants themselves had applied to register a device mark containing the phrase “Paharganj Ke Mashoor Chur Chur Naan”. To support this plea of estoppel, the Plaintiff relied on established judicial precedents, arguing that once a party applies for the registration of a mark, they cannot claim that the same mark is generic or incapable of protection.

The Defendants countered that the terms in question were completely generic and descriptive of the food product itself. They pointed out that there were dozens of outlets across Delhi using the term “Chur Chur Naan” on various public food-delivery and listing platforms such as Zomato, Justdial, and EatTreat. The Defendants argued that “Chur Chur” simply translates to “crushed”, and “Chur Chur Naan” merely describes a crushed flatbread. They maintained that such terms are common to the food trade and are completely incapable of acquiring secondary trademark significance, meaning no single business should be granted a commercial monopoly over them.

Reasoning and Analysis of the Court

The Court began its analysis by balancing the statutory rights of a registered trademark holder against the legislative limitations built into the Trade Marks Act, 1999. While Section 28 of the Act vests exclusive rights in a registered proprietor, these rights are explicitly subject to other provisions of the Act. Specifically, the Court invoked Section 35 of the Act, which acts as a statutory saving clause. Under Section 35, a registered trademark holder cannot interfere with any third party’s bona fide use of a term that describes the character or quality of their goods or services.

The Court drew a parallel between “Chur Chur Naan” and other regional food terms used in everyday language across India, such as “Amritsari Kulcha,” “Malabar Parantha,” “Hyderabadi Biryani,” “Kashmiri Dum Aloo,” “Chettinad Chicken,” “Murthal ke Paranthe,” and “Mangalore idli”. The Court observed that the term “Chur Chur” literally translates to “crushed” in normal conversational language. Therefore, “Chur Chur Naan” is simply a “crushed naan” and nothing more, serving as a direct description of the physical state and character of the bread. The Court ruled that such generic descriptive terms are entirely incapable of acquiring distinctiveness or trademark significance.

Examples of Similar Regional Descriptive Food Terms

• Amritsari Kulcha
• Malabar Parantha
• Hyderabadi Biryani
• Kashmiri Dum Aloo
• Chettinad Chicken
• Murthal ke Paranthe
• Mangalore idli

The Court distinguished the precedents of Automatic Electric Limited v. R.K. Dhawan & Anr. and The Indian Hotels Company Ltd. and Ors. v. Jiva Institute of Vedic Science and Culture, which the Plaintiff had cited to support his plea of estoppel. The Court observed that the Defendants had not applied for a registration of the wordmark “Chur Chur Naan” itself, but rather for a composite device logo featuring a circular design of a chef. In such composite device registrations, generic phrases are merely descriptive elements of a larger logo and are eventually subject to disclaimers.

Crucially, the Court emphasised that even if the trademark registry mistakenly grants registrations for entirely generic or descriptive words, a court of law cannot ignore the public interest. The judiciary must prevent the creation of monopolies over common linguistic terms, as doing so would unfairly restrict fair market competition.

To prevent consumer confusion and passing off in the same locality, the Court observed that most food vendors naturally distinguish themselves by adding distinctive prefixes, such as “Sanjay Chur Chur Naan” or “Vijay Chur Chur Naan”. Thus, while the Defendants had every right to sell crushed naans, they were required to adopt a name that clearly distinguished their business from the Plaintiff’s business to avoid any initial customer deception.

Final Decision of the Court

The Court disposed of the interim injunction application with practical, balancing directions. It declined to grant the Plaintiff an absolute injunction against the words “Chur Chur Naan” or “Amritsari Chur Chur Naan”. Instead, to prevent local business confusion, the Court accepted a mutual arrangement where the Defendants agreed to modify their trade names to “Paharganj Seth Ke Mashoor Chur Chur Naan” and “Paharganj Seth Ke Mashoor Amritsari Naan”.

The Court directed that the revised name must be displayed in a uniform font, colour, and style, ensuring that the generic phrases “Chur Chur Naan” and “Amritsari Chur Chur Naan” are not given any undue visual prominence. The Defendants were granted a period of thirty days to execute this transition. Additionally, the online food-delivery platform Swiggy (Defendant Number 4) was directed to file an affidavit listing the names of all outlets using similar “Chur Chur Naan” terms on its platform, after which it would be removed from the lawsuit.

Point of Law Settled

This judgement establishes that entirely generic or descriptive expressions used in common language to describe the physical characteristics or preparation of food are legally incapable of acquiring exclusive trademark status. The ruling confirms that even if a party successfully registers such a generic term, Section 35 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, protects competitors who use the term in a bona fide, descriptive manner. Furthermore, the decision clarifies that the principle of estoppel (from Automatic Electric) does not apply where a party has merely applied for a composite device mark containing generic descriptive text, and it empowers courts to ignore wrongful or overbroad registrations in the interest of maintaining a free and competitive market.

Case Information

• Balancing Intellectual Property Rights And Access To Medicine
• Food Adulteration in India: Legal Challenges, FSSAI Failures, Constitutional Rights and Technology-Driven Reforms
• Is Patent Linkage A Necessity Or A Potential Disaster For Pharma Industry
• Safeguarding the Plate: An In-Depth Examination of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 in India
• Unpacking Descriptive Trade Marks