Calcutta High Court Examines ITC’s Claim of Look-Alike Packaging Against Britannia’s 50-50 Cheese Biscuits

Calcutta High Court Examines ITC’s Claim of Look-Alike Packaging Against Britannia’s 50-50 Cheese Biscuits

Introduction

ITC Limited has instituted a commercial intellectual property suit before the Calcutta High Court against Britannia Industries Limited alleging copyright infringement and passing off in relation to the packaging and trade dress of ITC’s cheese-flavoured biscuit product marketed under the brand Sunfeast Wowzers. The dispute concerns Britannia’s newly launched 50-50 Cheese variant, which ITC claims adopts a deceptively similar visual identity.

Factual Background

ITC launched Sunfeast Wowzers – Cheese Variant in November 2024 with a packaging design featuring a predominantly black background combined with yellow and orange accents, molten cheese imagery, and an angled depiction of a rectangular cracker. ITC asserts that this visual configuration was deliberately unconventional in the cheese-biscuit segment, which traditionally uses yellow or orange-dominant packaging.

In January 2026, Britannia introduced a cheese-flavoured variant of its 50-50 biscuits. According to ITC, Britannia’s packaging adopts a similar black-based colour palette, comparable graphic layout, molten cheese visuals, and liquid-style typography, resulting in an overall trade dress that closely resembles that of Sunfeast Wowzers.

ITC claims that Sunfeast Wowzers achieved significant commercial success within a short period, reaching the second position in its category within twelve months and generating sales of approximately ₹51.45 crore. ITC also claims to have invested substantially in advertising, including celebrity endorsements, to build goodwill in the product’s trade dress.

Procedural Background

The suit was filed before the Intellectual Property Rights Division of the Calcutta High Court and was listed before Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur on February 6, 2026. At the initial hearing, ITC fairly submitted that it was not seeking any ad-interim injunction at that stage.

ITC stated that, according to its information, Britannia’s impugned product had been launched only in Kerala and Tamil Nadu. This assertion was disputed by Britannia.

In view of the submissions, the Court directed the parties to complete pleadings. Britannia was granted one week to file its affidavit-in-opposition, with ITC permitted to file its reply one week thereafter. The matter was listed for further hearing on February 26, 2026.

Issues

1. Whether the packaging and trade dress of Britannia’s 50-50 Cheese biscuits are deceptively similar to ITC’s Sunfeast Wowzers packaging.

2. Whether Britannia’s adoption of the impugned packaging constitutes passing off by misappropriating ITC’s goodwill.

3. Whether the artistic elements of the Wowzers packaging qualify for copyright protection and, if so, whether such copyright has been infringed.

Contentions of the Parties

ITC’s Contentions: ITC contends that Britannia has copied the essential and distinctive elements of the Sunfeast Wowzers trade dress, including the colour combination, layout, graphical elements, and overall visual impression. It argues that the cumulative effect of these similarities is likely to cause initial interest confusion among consumers, particularly in crowded retail environments where purchasing decisions are driven by visual cues.

ITC further asserts that it holds registered copyright in the artistic work comprising the Wowzers packaging and that Britannia’s packaging amounts to substantial reproduction of that work. It alleges that Britannia’s departure from its traditional green-themed 50-50 packaging to a black-based scheme indicates dishonest adoption intended to ride on ITC’s goodwill.

Britannia’s Stand: At the present stage, Britannia has disputed ITC’s assertion regarding the geographical scope of the product launch and has sought time to place its defence on record through an affidavit-in-opposition. Detailed contentions on similarity, originality, and consumer confusion are yet to be formally adjudicated.

Reasoning and Analysis

At this preliminary stage, the Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the dispute. However, the pleadings raise classic issues of trade dress protection, where the assessment is not confined to individual elements in isolation but to the overall visual impression conveyed to an average consumer with imperfect recollection.

The case engages settled principles governing passing off, particularly whether the defendant’s packaging creates a likelihood of confusion by appropriating the plaintiff’s distinctive get-up. It also implicates copyright law insofar as protection is claimed over the artistic arrangement, colour combination, and visual composition of packaging, rather than over functional or generic elements.

The Court’s direction for completion of pleadings indicates that these issues will be examined after a fuller factual and evidentiary record is placed before it.

Decision

The Calcutta High Court directed the parties to exchange affidavits and listed the matter for further hearing on February 26, 2026. No ad-interim injunction was sought or granted at this stage. All issues have been kept open for consideration on merits.

In this case the plaintiff was represented by Mr. S.N. Mookherjee, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rudraman Bhattacharya, Sr. Adv. Mr. Viraj Gupta, Mr. P. Sinha, Mr. K.K. Pandey, Ms. S. Majumdar,Mr. Manosij Mukherjee, Mr. Dipro Dawn, Ms. Mallika Bothra, Mr. Souradip Banerjee, Advocates.

Meanwhile the defendant was represented by Mr. Ratnanko Banerji, Sr. Adv Mr. Arunabha Deb, Mr. Soumya Raychowdhury, Ms. Ashika Daga, Mr. Raunak Das Sharma, Ms. S. Bhowmik, Ms. Sampurna Mukherjee, Mr. Aditya Mukherjee, Advocates.