Unveiling the Clash of Jurisprudence: Adversarial Vs. Inquisitorial
Introduction: The Indian legal system, rooted in the common law tradition, operates predominantly on an adversarial model where the court acts as a neutral arbiter, adjudicating disputes based on the evidence and arguments presented by the parties. However, the case of Surya Food and Agro Limited v. Om Traders, adjudicated by the Delhi High Court, brings to the forefront a critical tension between adversarial and inquisitorial approaches to jurisprudence. This case, centered on allegations of copyright infringement and passing off concerning the packaging of biscuit products, highlights the procedural intricacies of commercial disputes and the judiciary’s role in ensuring fairness. The court’s decision to set aside a summary judgment rendered by a Single Judge underscores the importance of adhering to adversarial principles, particularly in the context of commercial litigation governed by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. This article delves into the factual and procedural nuances of the case, the legal issues at play, the parties’ submissions, the judicial reasoning, and the broader implications for the interplay between adversarial and inquisitorial jurisprudence.
Detailed Factual Background: Surya Food and Agro Limited, a company incorporated in 1992, is a prominent manufacturer of cookies, cakes, confectioneries, juices, and beverages, owning several trademarks, including “Butter Bite,” “Italiano,” and “Butter Delite.” The dispute revolves around its product “Butter Delite,” launched in October 2015 with distinctive packaging claimed to be an artistic work under the Copyright Act, 1957. This packaging was designed by Mr. Sachin More of Oberoi IBC India Pvt. Ltd. in August 2015 and assigned to Surya Food via a deed dated 10 August 2015. The packaging was later registered under the Copyright Act (Registration No. A-132116 of 2019) and as a trademark (Registration No. 4329956 in Class 30). Surya Food asserted that the packaging’s trade dress, characterized by its red color scheme and layout, had become synonymous with “Butter Delite” due to extensive use and sales, evidenced by annual figures: INR 7.18 crores (2015-16), INR 53.12 crores (2016-17), INR 120.07 crores (2017-18), and INR 83.40 crores (up to 30 November 2018).
In December 2018, Surya Food discovered that Om Traders, a retailer, was selling biscuits under the brand “Butter Krunch,” manufactured by Raja Udyog Private Limited, in packaging allegedly similar to “Butter Delite.” Surya Food claimed that the respondents had copied the artwork, color scheme, and placement of elements, constituting copyright infringement and passing off. The company argued that the similarities in packaging could deceive consumers, leveraging the goodwill of “Butter Delite.” The respondents, however, maintained that their packaging was distinct and that the elements cited by Surya Food were generic to the biscuit industry.
Detailed Procedural Background: Surya Food filed a suit, CS(COMM) 10/2019, before the Delhi High Court, seeking a permanent injunction, damages, and rendition of accounts against Om Traders and Raja Udyog. On 7 January 2019, summons were issued, but Surya Food’s request for an ex parte interim injunction was denied. On 26 February 2019, Raja Udyog appeared, seeking time to file a written statement and respond to Surya Food’s application for interim relief under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). Om Traders did not appear, and on 25 March 2019, the Single Judge proceeded ex parte against them. The following day, 26 March 2019, the Single Judge heard arguments, ostensibly on the interim relief application, but clarified that the suit could be disposed of based on pleadings and admitted documents unless evidence was deemed necessary. Without framing issues or allowing evidence, the Single Judge dismissed the suit, finding the packaging of “Butter Delite” generic and not entitled to protection.
Aggrieved, Surya Food filed an intra-court appeal, RFA(OS)(COMM) 28/2019, challenging the procedural propriety of the Single Judge’s summary disposal. The Division Bench, comprising Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan, examined whether the Single Judge’s approach adhered to the procedural mandates of the CPC, particularly Order XIII-A, and the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.
Issues Involved in the Case: The case raised several critical issues. First, whether the Single Judge was justified in rendering a summary judgment without an application under Order XIII-A of the CPC, which governs summary judgments in commercial disputes? Second, whether the Single Judge’s reliance on personal impressions and unpleaded facts violated adversarial principles? Third, whether the provisions of Chapter X-A of the 2018 Rules, allowing suo motu summary judgments, conflicted with Order XIII-A of the CPC. Fourth, whether the packaging of “Butter Delite” was distinctive or generic, warranting protection against infringement and passing off. The core issue, however, was the balance between adversarial and inquisitorial approaches, as the Single Judge’s proactive findings suggested an inquisitorial stance, bypassing the parties’ pleaded case.
Detailed Submission of Parties: Surya Food argued that the Single Judge erred in dismissing the suit without framing issues or permitting evidence, contravening the adversarial framework mandated by the CPC. They contended that Order XIII-A requires a formal application for summary judgment, with a structured procedure ensuring both parties’ participation, including 30 days’ notice and the opportunity to file a reply. Surya Food emphasized that the Single Judge’s findings—such as the packaging being generic or biscuits targeting children—were based on impressions, not evidence or pleadings. They highlighted their substantial sales and registered intellectual property rights, asserting that the similarities in packaging warranted a trial to assess deceptive similarity and consumer confusion.
The respondents argued that the Single Judge’s decision was within the court’s jurisdiction under Chapter X-A of the 2018 Rules, which permits suo motu summary judgments. They contended that the packaging of “Butter Krunch” was distinct, bearing the prominent “Raja” trademark, unlike Surya Food’s “Priya Gold.” They argued that the red color and rectangular shape were common in the biscuit industry, negating claims of distinctiveness. The respondents further submitted that the case management hearing under Order XV-A allowed the court to dispose of the suit summarily, aligning with the Commercial Courts Act’s objective of expeditious resolution.
Detailed Discussion on Judgments and Citations: The Division Bench extensively analyzed the Single Judge’s approach, referencing several precedents to underscore the procedural and jurisprudential issues. The Single Judge had relied on foreign judgments to support the finding that the packaging was generic. In The Paddington Corporation v. Attiki Importers & Distributors, Inc., 996 F.2d 577 (2d Cir. 1993), the U.S. Second Circuit held that trade dress common to an industry is generic and not inherently distinctive. Similarly, in Fun-Damental Too, Ltd. v. Gemmy Industries Corp., 111 F.3d 993 (2d Cir. 1997), the court reiterated that industry-standard packaging lacks protectable distinctiveness. The Single Judge also cited Keebler Company v. Nabisco Brands, Inc., 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6826, noting that similar colors are common in the cookie market, making exclusive claims over a color untenable. Additionally, Colgate Palmolive Company Limited v. Patel & Anr., 2005 SCC OnLine Del 1439, was referenced to assert that no party can claim a monopoly over a color.
The Division Bench, however, focused on procedural propriety, drawing heavily from Bright Enterprises Private Limited & Anr. v. MJ Bizcraft LLP & Anr., 2017 SCC OnLine Del 6394. This case emphasized that Order XIII-A mandates a formal application and adherence to a prescribed procedure, including notice and opportunity for response, to ensure fairness. The court in Bright Enterprises held that summary judgments are exceptional and require scrupulous compliance with procedural safeguards to avoid injustice. The Division Bench also cited HPL (India) Ltd. & Ors. v. QRG Enterprises & Anr., 2017 SCC OnLine Del 6955, and Indian Style Wrestling Association of India & Anr. v. Wrestling Federation of India, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 9902, to affirm that the Commercial Courts Act prevails over conflicting High Court rules, reinforcing the primacy of Order XIII-A.
The respondents’ reliance on Chapter X-A of the 2018 Rules was countered by the Division Bench’s reference to G.P. Stewart v. Brojendra Kishore Roy Choudhury, 1939 SCC OnLine Cal 116, which clarified that repugnancy between laws need not be direct but can arise when one provision nullifies another’s effect. The court found that Rule 1 of Chapter X-A, allowing suo motu summary judgments, conflicted with Order XIII-A’s requirement of a party-initiated application, undermining the adversarial process.
Detailed Reasoning and Analysis of Judge: The Division Bench, in a judgment meticulously dissected the Single Judge’s approach, highlighting its deviation from adversarial norms. The court noted that the Single Judge’s decision to dispose of the suit summarily, without an application under Order XIII-A, violated the procedural framework established by the Commercial Courts Act. Order XIII-A, inserted via Section 16 of the Act, enables summary judgments only upon a party’s application, with clear stipulations for notice, reply, and evidence. The Single Judge’s failure to follow this procedure, coupled with the absence of framed issues or evidence, rendered the judgment procedurally infirm.
The court further criticized the Single Judge’s reliance on personal recollections, such as the red packaging of “Britannia Tiger Biscuits” and “Britannia Vita Marie Gold,” which were not part of the record. This approach, the Division Bench held, transformed the court into a witness, violating the adversarial principle that judges adjudicate based on pleaded facts and evidence. The Single Judge’s findings that the packaging was generic, that biscuits target children, and that red is a common color were speculative, lacking evidentiary support or alignment with the respondents’ defense.
On the conflict between Chapter X-A of the 2018 Rules and Order XIII-A, the court reasoned that the Commercial Courts Act, as a special enactment, prevails over High Court rules. Section 16(3) explicitly states that CPC provisions amended by the Act override conflicting High Court rules. The court rejected the respondents’ argument that Chapter X-A’s suo motu power could coexist with Order XIII-A, noting that the latter’s structured procedure ensures natural justice, which a suo motu judgment bypasses. The absence of a comparable procedure in Chapter X-A further underscored the conflict, as it left parties without adequate opportunity to contest the court’s initiative.
The Division Bench also addressed the substantive merits briefly, noting that Surya Food’s claims of deceptive similarity and consumer confusion warranted a trial. The packaging’s color scheme, size, and element placement raised triable issues, which the Single Judge prematurely dismissed by deeming them generic. The court emphasized that such findings required evidence, particularly given the respondents’ denial of similarity and the ex parte status of Om Traders.
Final Decision: The Division Bench allowed the appeal, set aside the Single Judge’s judgment dated 26 March 2019, and restored the suit, CS(COMM) 10/2019, to its position as of that date. The Registry was directed to list the suit before the concerned Roster Bench on 30 January 2023 for further proceedings, ensuring adherence to adversarial procedures, including issue framing and evidence.
Law Settled in This Case: This case settles significant procedural and jurisprudential principles in commercial litigation. It establishes that courts cannot render suo motu summary judgments in commercial disputes under Order XIII-A of the CPC, which requires a party-initiated application and strict procedural compliance. The decision reinforces the primacy of the Commercial Courts Act over conflicting High Court rules, particularly Chapter X-A of the 2018 Rules. It underscores the adversarial nature of civil proceedings, prohibiting judges from relying on personal impressions or unpleaded facts. The case also highlights the necessity of a trial when triable issues, such as deceptive similarity in trade dress, are raised, ensuring parties’ rights to present evidence and contest claims.
Case Title: Surya Food and Agro Limited Vs. Om Traders and Anr.: Date of Order: 20 January 2023: Case No.: RFA(OS)(COMM) 28/2019 : Neutral Citation: 2023/DHC/000445: Name of Court: High Court of Delhi: Name of Hon'ble Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amit Mahajan
Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
