Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Calcutta Division Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya, by an order dated December 3, 2025, upheld an interim injunction in favour of Shalimar Chemical Works Pvt. Ltd. in a passing-off action concerning coconut-oil trade dress. The Court affirmed restraints on Edible Products (India) Ltd., which markets coconut oil under the “KMP” brand, from using packaging whose overall get-up was considered deceptively similar to Shalimar’s long-used containers and liable to affect its goodwill. Dismissing Edible Products’ appeal, the Bench stated that in passing-off disputes the similarity of rival products must be assessed from the vantage point of an average, uninformed purchaser, focusing on the composite impression created by the bottles, colour scheme and presentation rather than on a detailed side-by-side comparison.

The defendant filed an appeal challenging an order of the Commercial Court at Alipore, which had granted a temporary injunction restraining it from using an allegedly deceptive trade dress and had simultaneously dismissed the defendant’s application to vacate an earlier ex parte injunction. The plaintiff instituted a suit seeking perpetual injunction against the defendant from using, manufacturing, marketing or selling goods bearing an impugned trade mark or trade dress alleged to be identical or deceptively similar to its own registered trademarks, trade dress, colour combination, get-up and packaging.

Also Read: Candidate Cannot Be Rejected If Requisite Principal Subject Is Studied Despite Different Specialisation And Degree Title : Supreme Court

The injunction application reproduced the specific relief claimed, and the defendant later moved to vacate the order. The defendant argued that the plaintiff’s case was primarily of trademark infringement and could not be converted into a passing off claim, contending that the plaintiff had no exclusive rights over bottle shapes or colours and that the Trinity Test requirements of goodwill, misrepresentation and damage were not satisfied. The plaintiff relied on documentary materials such as advertisements and invoices to show long and continuous use of its HDPE packaging since 2006, prior user rights, and extensive turnover. Both parties cited authorities on passing off, trade dress, goodwill, similarity of packaging, and the relevant statutory provisions including Section 27 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

The Court observed that “the suit of the plaintiff, as framed, is for reliefs both in respect of infringement of trade mark as well as passing off.” It noted that the plaintiff’s products carried “several registered trademarks either as trademark or trade dress or device,” making both remedies available. The Court recorded that “a passing off action is an action in deceit… and is wider in scope than an infringement action simpliciter.”

On the applicable legal test, the Court stated that the classical Trinity Test required proof that the trade dress “has acquired a goodwill or reputation,” that the defendant’s goods “may have the impression that the offered goods… are those of the plaintiff,” and that “the plaintiff has suffered or may suffer damages because of such misrepresentation.” The Court referenced the “housewife in a hurry” formulation and recorded that Indian jurisprudence applies the test of “a reasonably average person… having no particular information about the details of the products.”

The Court observed that on examining the two products, “there is striking resemblance and sufficient scope of confusing between the two.” It further recorded that the background colours used—yellow and green—made distinctions in the lettering colours less significant. It stated that similarities in the coconut tree depictions also contributed to potential confusion, as “there is very little scope to distinguish… when the two products are looked at after a certain point of time.”

The Court viewed the issue from the standpoint of an average consumer, stating that “the total impression and get-up… is to be considered,” not isolated elements. It found that the plaintiff had demonstrated longstanding goodwill, noting that “the product… has been used at least since the year 2006” and that the name Shalimar had “been in use at least since 1945 and has since become a household name.” The Court recorded that the defendant entered the market much later, around 2017.

Regarding misrepresentation, the Court stated that use of a similar trade dress “in the absence of any explanation… definitely leads to the inference of misrepresentation and intended deceit,” citing the presumption of dishonesty in the absence of a plausible explanation. On damage, it noted that the plaintiff held the “lion’s share in the market” and that similarity in appearance “particularly if seen at some interval… by a person of average intelligence and recall,” would likely harm its goodwill.

Also Read: High Courts Cannot Stay IBC Personal Insolvency Proceedings Vested In NCLT; Calcutta High Court Dismisses Debtor Writ Challenging Tribunal Process

The Court directed that “FMAT No. 189 of 2024 is dismissed on contest, thereby affirming the impugned order dated May 15, 2024 passed by the learned Judge, Commercial Court at Alipore in Title Suit No. 23 of 2023.”

“CAN 2 of 2024 and CAN 3 of 2024 are also disposed of.” The Court clarified that “none of the observations made in this order… shall be conclusive insofar as the adjudication of the main suit is concerned and the learned trial Judge shall decide the suit independently in accordance with law… without being unnecessarily influenced by any of the observations made in this order.  There will be no order as to costs.”

Advocates Representing The Parties

For the Appellants:Mr. Rudraman Bhattacharya, Sr. Adv., Mr. Suvasish Sengupta, Ms. Arunuima Lala, Mr. Arindam Chandra, Mr. Atish Ghosh, Ms. Antara Dey, Ms. Neha Gupta

For the Respondents: Mr. Ranjan Bachawat, Sr. Adv., Mr. Abhrajit Mitra, Sr. Adv., Mr. Soumya Ray Chowdhury, Mr. Debayan Mondal, Mr. Subhankar Nag, Mr. Sanket Sarawagi, Mr. Sanjiv Kumar Trivedi, Ms. Iram Hassan, Ms. Mahima Cholera, Mr. Himanshu Bhawsinghka, Ms. Susrea Mitra, Mr. Sagnik Bose

Case Title: Edible Products (India) Limited v. Shalimar Chemical Works Private Limited
Neutral Citation: 2025: CHC-AS:2186-DB
Case Number: FMAT No. 189 of 2024
Bench: Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, Justice Supratim Bhattacharya