Summary
In the case of Edible Products (India) Limited vs Shalimar Chemical Works Private Limited, the Calcutta High Court upheld a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from using a deceptively similar trade dress for coconut oil bottles. The court found that the plaintiff had established goodwill in the shape, colour, and overall get-up of its HDPE packaging and that the defendant’s use created a likelihood of misrepresentation and damage.
Coconut Oil Bottle Trade Dress Passing Off Dispute
Edible Products (India) Limited, the plaintiff in the original suit, filed a case against Shalimar Chemical Works Private Limited, the defendant, alleging that the latter was misusing the trade dress of its coconut oil packaging. The dispute arose over the shape, colour, and get-up of HDPE bottles used by both parties. The plaintiff claimed passing off and obtained an ad-interim injunction from the trial court. The trial court later confirmed the injunction. Shalimar Chemical Works then appealed the order. In the appeal, Shalimar became the appellant, and Edible Products became the respondent.
Questions Before the Court
- Whether the shape, colour combination, and overall appearance of the plaintiff’s packaging constituted a distinctive trade dress?
- Whether the defendant’s use of a similar trade dress created a likelihood of passing off?
Arguments Presented By the Parties
Appellant (Defendant in Suit)
- Argued that the bottle shape and colour scheme were generic and commonly used in the industry.
- Submitted that the plaintiff used various bottle designs and had no exclusive right to the shape or colour.
- Contended that the product labels were clearly different, with distinct brand names and colours.
- Alleged that the plaintiff had not shown quantifiable damage or loss of reputation.
- Asserted that the packaging of the defendant’s product was for hair oil, whereas the plaintiff sold edible oil.
Respondent (Plaintiff in Suit)
- Claimed use of the HDPE bottle trade dress since 2006 and submitted advertising and sales material to support long-standing goodwill.
- Argued that the similarity in overall packaging was likely to cause confusion among average consumers.
- Pointed out that the defendant applied to register the shape of the bottle after receiving a cease and desist notice, indicating that the design was not generic.
- Submitted that the defendant had not explained the similarity in packaging despite being a later entrant in the market.
Court’s Analysis
The court considered the three-part test for passing off. First, the court found that the plaintiff had used the specific packaging for edible oil since 2006 and that the product had acquired market recognition through consistent use and advertising. The court noted that the name “Shalimar” had been associated with the trade dress for over a decade.
Second, the court held that the similarity in shape, colour combination, and depiction of coconut trees was likely to cause confusion. It applied the standard of an average consumer with ordinary recall and found that the overall appearance of the products could lead to a mistaken belief that they originated from the same source.
Third, the court concluded that the plaintiff, being a market leader with a turnover of over Rs. 450 Crores, faced probable damage to its goodwill due to the defendant’s actions. The court also observed that the defendant had not produced sufficient evidence to establish that such packaging was common in the trade.
The court rejected the defendant’s argument that use for hair oil created a distinction, noting that both products were coconut oil and that such classification did not avoid confusion.
Findings
The court upheld the trial court’s temporary injunction order restraining the defendant from using the impugned trade dress. It dismissed the appeal and affirmed the interim protection granted in favour of the plaintiff.
Relevant Paras
Para 55: “It is the total impression and get-up which is to be considered in the context of passing off, and not individual components of the trade dress or appearance.”
Para 59: “The two facts taken together unerringly indicate that at least from the year 2006, the brand name ‘Shalimar’ has been directly associated with the particular appearance of the HDPE containers…”
Para 74: “A similar design of bottle is being used by the defendant, which is definitely deceptive, particularly in the absence of any explanation for such resemblance…”
Para 77: “The cumulative appearance of the defendant’s packaging remarkably resembles that of the plaintiff, particularly if seen at some interval… the resultant damage to the plaintiff’s goodwill is a given.”
Case Citation
Edible Products (India) Limited vs Shalimar Chemical Works Private Limited, FMAT No. 189 of 2024, Calcutta High Court, decided on 3 December 2025.
Indian Kanoon Link: http://indiankanoon.org/doc/8967622/ (Visited on 20 December 2025)
Disclaimer
This case blog is based on the author’s understanding of the judgment. Understandings and opinions of others may differ. An AI application was used to generate parts of this case blog. Views are personal.
