Calcutta High Court Upholds Interim Ban on ‘KMP’ Coconut Oil Packaging for Imitating Shalimar Trade Dress

Calcutta High Court Upholds Interim Ban on ‘KMP’ Coconut Oil Packaging for Imitating Shalimar Trade Dress

Introduction

The Calcutta High Court has upheld an interim injunction restraining Edible Products (India) Limited from using packaging for its “KMP” coconut oil that was found to be deceptively similar to the long-standing trade dress of Shalimar Chemical Works Private Limited. The Court reiterated that in passing-off actions, the overall visual and commercial impression of rival products must be assessed from the standpoint of an average consumer with imperfect recollection.

Factual Background

Shalimar Chemical Works Private Limited is a well-established manufacturer of edible oils and related products, claiming use of its distinctive coconut oil packaging since 2006 and goodwill in the “Shalimar” brand dating back to 1945. Its coconut oil has been sold in a yellow-green bottle featuring coconut-tree imagery, a particular bottle shape, and a consistent visual layout.

Edible Products (India) Limited entered the coconut oil market in or around 2017 and sold its product under the brand name “KMP.” Shalimar alleged that the packaging adopted by Edible Products for “KMP” coconut oil was nearly identical to its own trade dress and was likely to mislead consumers into believing an association between the two products.

Procedural Background

Shalimar instituted a passing-off suit before the Commercial Court and sought interim relief restraining Edible Products from using the impugned packaging. The Trial Court granted an interim injunction in favour of Shalimar.

Aggrieved, Edible Products preferred an appeal before the Calcutta High Court, challenging the grant of interim injunction and contending that the essential requirements of a passing-off action were not satisfied.

Issues

1. Whether Shalimar had established a prima facie case of passing off based on goodwill, misrepresentation, and likelihood of damage.

2. Whether the packaging of “KMP” coconut oil was deceptively similar to Shalimar’s trade dress when viewed as a whole.

3. Whether the interim injunction granted by the Trial Court warranted interference in appeal.

Contentions of the Parties

Edible Products argued that Shalimar had failed to satisfy the classic trinity of passing off goodwill, misrepresentation, and damage. It contended that yellow-green bottles and coconut imagery were common to the edible oil trade and could not be monopolised. It also submitted that its “KMP Ayurvedic” brown label was distinct from Shalimar’s red label and that the prominent use of the word “KMP” was sufficient to distinguish the two products.

Shalimar countered that it had been consistently using its distinctive packaging for nearly two decades and had acquired substantial goodwill. It argued that Edible Products had entered the market much later and had offered no credible explanation for adopting a trade dress that was strikingly similar in bottle shape, colour scheme, coconut-tree depiction, and overall layout. Shalimar relied on advertisements, invoices, and sales figures to demonstrate continuous and extensive use.

Reasoning and Analysis

The Division Bench emphasised that in a passing-off action, the test is not a meticulous side-by-side comparison but the overall impression created on an average consumer with imperfect recollection. On examining the rival products, the Court found that the cumulative effect of the bottle shape, yellow-green colour combination, coconut-tree imagery, and label layout was such that a consumer could reasonably assume an association between the two brands.

The Court rejected the argument that minor differences in label colour brown versus red were sufficient to avoid confusion, noting that such distinctions were not prominent when seen against the dominant background colours. It also held that the mere addition of the word “KMP” did not dispel the likelihood of confusion, as the trade dress as a whole conveyed a striking resemblance.

The Bench observed that Shalimar had prima facie established goodwill in its packaging, that Edible Products’ adoption of a nearly identical trade dress amounted to misrepresentation, and that the likelihood of damage to Shalimar’s goodwill was evident. It noted that when competing products are seen at intervals rather than side by side, the scope for confusion is even greater.

Decision

The Calcutta High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the interim injunction restraining Edible Products (India) Limited from using the impugned packaging for its “KMP” coconut oil. The Court clarified that its observations were prima facie in nature and would not prejudice the final adjudication of the suit on merits.

In this case the appellant was represented by Mr. Rudraman Bhattacharya, Mr. Suvasish Sengupta, Ms. Arunuima Lala, Mr. Arindam Chandra, Mr. Atish Ghosh, Ms. Antara Dey, and Ms. Neha Gupta, Advocates. Meanwhile the respondent was represented by 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 and Mr. Sagnik Bose, Advocates.