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.<\/p>\n
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 \u201cShalimar\u201d had been associated with the trade dress for over a decade.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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\u2019s actions. The court also observed that the defendant had not produced sufficient evidence to establish that such packaging was common in the trade.<\/p>\n
The court rejected the defendant\u2019s argument that use for hair oil created a distinction, noting that both products were coconut oil and that such classification did not avoid confusion.<\/p>\n
The court upheld the trial court\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n
Para 55: \u201cIt 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.\u201d<\/p>\n
Para 59: \u201cThe two facts taken together unerringly indicate that at least from the year 2006, the brand name \u2018Shalimar\u2019 has been directly associated with the particular appearance of the HDPE containers…\u201d<\/p>\n
Para 74: \u201cA similar design of bottle is being used by the defendant, which is definitely deceptive, particularly in the absence of any explanation for such resemblance…\u201d<\/p>\n
Para 77: \u201cThe cumulative appearance of the defendant\u2019s packaging remarkably resembles that of the plaintiff, particularly if seen at some interval… the resultant damage to the plaintiff\u2019s goodwill is a given.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Case Citation<\/h5>\n
Edible Products (India) Limited vs Shalimar Chemical Works Private Limited, FMAT No. 189 of 2024, Calcutta High Court, decided on 3 December 2025.<\/p>\n