LEGAL ANALYTICAL RESEARCH PAPER
Brief Introductory Head Note
The case of Edible Products (India) Limited vs. Shalimar Chemical Works Private Limited revolves around a dispute relating to passing off and alleged infringement of trade dress in the market of coconut oil products. The central concern before the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court was whether the defendant’s product packaging, colour scheme, bottle shape, and overall get-up were deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff, thereby misleading ordinary consumers into believing that both products originated from the same source.
The matter examines fundamental principles of passing off under Indian trademark jurisprudence, including the Classical Trinity Test consisting of goodwill, deception, and likelihood of damage. The decision also touches upon the distinction between infringement and passing off, the test of an average consumer, relevance of prior use, and the significance of trade dress in consumer-facing packaged goods.
Summary of Case and Factual Background
The plaintiff, Shalimar Chemical Works Private Limited, is a long-established manufacturer of coconut oil products under the brand “Shalimar.” The company has been operating in the market since 1945 and, specifically, selling its products in the present HDPE (plastic) bottles in yellow and green colour scheme since approximately 2006. The plaintiff claims substantial goodwill, a large customer base, heavy advertisement expenditure, and brand recognition associated with its unique trade dress.
The defendant, Edible Products (India) Limited, began selling coconut oil in containers similar in shape, colour, bottle texture, label style, and overall packaging in the market. The plaintiff contended that this similarity was intentional and capable of misleading the general public.
The plaintiff approached the Commercial Court seeking injunction against the defendant from using the similar trade dress. The trial court granted an interim injunction, and later confirmed it after hearing both parties. The defendant appealed that order before the Calcutta High Court.
Procedural History
The plaintiff initially obtained an ex-parte interim injunction on August 16, 2023, restraining the defendant from marketing products in deceptively similar packaging. The defendant filed an application seeking vacation of the injunction, which was heard along with the plaintiff’s main interim injunction application.
On May 15, 2024, the Commercial Court made the injunction absolute and rejected the defendant’s vacating petition.
Dissatisfied, the defendant preferred FMAT No. 189 of 2024, contesting the injunction before the Calcutta High Court, which heard arguments over multiple dates and delivered judgment on December 03, 2025.
Core Dispute
The primary issue was whether the defendant’s product packaging amount to passing off by imitation of the plaintiff's distinctive trade dress, even though the trademarks used were different.
The questions before the court included:
Whether the defendant’s packaging was deceptively similar when viewed from the perspective of an average consumer.
Whether the plaintiff had established goodwill in the packaging sufficient to attract passing off protection.
Whether the similarity of shape, colour, label layout, cap texture, and graphical elements created a likelihood of confusion.
Whether the plaintiff must prove actual damage or whether likelihood of deception is sufficient.
Whether different end-uses of coconut oil (edible vs. hair use) defeat the allegation of passing off.
Detailed Legal Reasoning and Court Discussion
The Court traced the legal foundation of passing off to Section 27(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, recognising that passing off is an independent common-law remedy available even where trademarks are unregistered.
The Court relied heavily on the Classical Trinity Test, drawn from Reckitt & Colman Ltd. v. Borden Inc. [1990] RPC 340, popularly known as the Jif Lemon Case. The test requires proof of:
Goodwill
Misrepresentation
Likelihood of damage
On the first limb—goodwill—the Court noted that the plaintiff had used the distinctive HDPE packaging since 2006 and the Shalimar brand since 1945. Evidence of invoices, advertisements, and market dominance demonstrating more than ₹450 crore turnover was submitted. The Court held goodwill was clearly established.
On the second limb—misrepresentation—the Court observed that both products shared remarkably similar elements: yellow-green backgrounds, identical style coconut tree graphics, similar ribbed bottle design, and near-identical bottle cap shape. Even though the names "KMP" and "Shalimar" were different, the overall visual impression outweighed label differences. The Court applied the standard of an average consumer with imperfect memory, rejecting the defendant’s argument that labels were distinct enough to avoid confusion.
Key supporting citations included:
Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories, AIR 1965 SC 980 – Held that added matter may distinguish, but only if effective.
Satyam Infoway Ltd. v. Siffynet Solutions (P) Ltd., (2004) 6 SCC 145 – Presumption of dishonesty exists when later user cannot justify adopting similar features despite earlier user’s presence.
Gerbatschow Wodka KG v. John Distilleries Ltd., (2011) 47 PTC 100 – Bottle shape forms part of protectable trade dress.
The defendant argued the packaging was generic and common to trade. However, the Court rejected this contention because:
(a) No proof was produced to show widespread similar usage by others.
(b) Defendant itself applied for shape trademark registration, undermining its claim of genericness.
On the third limb—likelihood of damage—the Court held that given the plaintiff’s long-standing reputation, similarity in packaging, and the nature of the product sold to public masses, damage was inevitable even if not presently quantified.
The Court also dismissed the argument that edible oil and hair oil are different categories, relying on Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., (2001) 5 SCC 73, and the Full Bench ruling in Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. Mahaluxmi Textile Mills, (2009) 1 CHN 852, ruling that class of goods is irrelevant in a passing off action, if confusion exists.
Decision
The Calcutta High Court upheld the trial court’s order and dismissed the appeal. The interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the disputed packaging remained in force. The Court clarified that its findings are prima-facie and will not bind final trial adjudication.
No order as to costs was imposed.
Concluding Note
This judgment underscores the Indian judiciary’s commitment to protecting brand identity, packaging, and trade dress under passing-off law. The ruling clarifies that trade dress protection does not require registered rights, and even common-law goodwill can justify injunctions. The decision reinforces the doctrine that the overall impression matters more than individual differences, and average consumer perception remains a central test. It sends a strong message that unfair imitation in packaging, especially in mass-market goods, will attract swift judicial intervention.
Case Details
Case Title: Edible Products (India) Limited vs. Shalimar Chemical Works Private Limited
Order Date: 03 December 2025
Case Number: FMAT No. 189 of 2024 with CAN 2 & CAN 3 of 2024
Neutral Citation: 2025:CHC-AS:2186-DB
Court: High Court at Calcutta, Appellate Side
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Supratim Bhattacharya
Suggested Titles for Publication
- Trade Dress and Passing Off: Consumer Perception and Legal Protection in FMCG Packaging Disputes
- Beyond the Label: Judicial Approach to Passing Off in the Indian Marketplace
- The Classical Trinity Test in Modern Trademark Litigation: A Case Study
- Protecting Brand Identity through Trade Dress: Lessons from the Calcutta High Court
- Imperfect Memory, Perfect Protection: Understanding Consumer Confusion Doctrine in Indian Passing Off Law
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
====
Calcutta High Court Upholds Injunction in Trade Dress Passing-Off Dispute Between Edible Products and Shalimar Chemical Works
Order dated 03 December 2025 | FMAT No. 189 of 2024 | Before Hon’ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Hon’ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya | High Court at Calcutta (Appellate Side)
In a significant ruling involving trade dress protection in the FMCG sector, the Calcutta High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Edible Products (India) Limited and upheld the interim injunction granted in favour of Shalimar Chemical Works Private Limited. The injunction restrains the appellant from using packaging alleged to be deceptively similar to the respondent’s coconut oil product presentation.
The dispute arose after Shalimar Chemical Works, a brand in the coconut oil sector since 1945, accused Edible Products of adopting an almost identical bottle shape, colour combination, label layout, and overall packaging that could mislead consumers in the marketplace. The Trial Court had granted an ex-parte injunction, later confirmed after hearing both sides. The appellant challenged the order arguing lack of similarity, generic nature of the packaging, and distinct trade labels.
The Division Bench rejected the appellant’s arguments and held that passing-off protection focuses on the overall look and impression, not merely label differences. The Court applied the Classical Trinity Test from the Jif Lemon Case and held that Shalimar had established goodwill, the defendant’s packaging created likelihood of confusion, and continued use could harm the plaintiff’s long-standing market reputation. The Court emphasized the standard of an “average consumer with imperfect memory” and noted that even if the names differed, the similarities in packaging could influence consumer perception.
The Court also observed that the defendant’s subsequent attempt to register the bottle shape undermined its argument that the design was generic or commonly used. The Bench concluded that the trial court took a plausible view and no interference was warranted at the interim stage.
Disclaimer: This is for general information only and should not be construed as legal advice as it may contain human errors in perception and presentation: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor (Patent & Trademark Attorney), High Court of Delhi.
