The Case Itc Limited Against Britannia Industry

Introduction

This case involves major corporations ITC and Britannia in a dispute over copyright infringement, leading to allegations of unfair competition. ITC launched a product called Sunfeast Farmlite digestive biscuits in February 2016, while Britannia introduced its Nutri Choice Digestive Zero biscuit in July 2016. According to ITC, both products appear indistinguishable to an unwary customer when placed side by side. As a result, ITC Limited, the plaintiff, filed a lawsuit against the defendant, Britannia Industries Ltd., seeking to prevent the defendant from infringing on its packaging rights by using a confusingly similar design for its Nutri Choice Zero biscuit.

Legal Proceedings

Under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC), ITC is seeking an interim injunction to restrain Britannia from continuing to use the contested packaging for its Nutri Choice Digestive Zero biscuit. During the proceedings, it was also noted that Britannia had been selling digestive biscuits under the "Nutri Choice" brand for several years. However, after ITC launched its Sunfeast Farmlite Digestive All Good biscuit, which emphasized "No maida" and "No added sugar," Britannia filed a complaint with the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI). This complaint resulted in a failed attempt to challenge ITC's claims. Subsequently, Britannia introduced Nutri Choice Zero Biscuit, making similar claims about the absence of maida and added sugar, while using packaging similar to that of Sunfeast Farmlite. The case highlights the alleged copying of unique color coding, methods, and placements of various elements of ITC’s packaging by Britannia, which could potentially lead to confusion and deception among consumers.

Negotiations and Arguments

Britannia proposed to ITC that they would substitute the blue color with dark blue, which ITC did not accept. Despite selling the same version of Nutri Choice Digestive internationally with different packaging, Britannia attempted to leverage ITC's brand image in India by using indistinguishable packaging. This act is considered a clear infringement of ITC’s copyrights in the said packaging. ITC countered by stating that if Britannia adopted their international packaging or changed the color to anything other than any shade of blue, ITC would have no objections. Britannia argued that they have been using the blue color for a wide variety of biscuits and that it is supposed to reflect “World Digestive Day.”

Economic and Legal Implications

Both parties endeavored to ensure that the other would relinquish the use of the color blue in their packaging, yet no common ground was established. ITC submitted evidence of uniquely distinctive features of its packaging, sales records since the product's inception, and marketing expenditure for the same. It was highlighted that due to ITC's brand image, within a short period of six months, the product achieved sales exceeding Rs. 5 crores, and ITC invested around Rs. 14 crores in its marketing. Notably, the price of both products was the same (Rs 25). Under Section 51 of the Copyright Act, 1957, it was asserted that Britannia's use of deceptively similar packaging constituted infringement of the original work in ITC's uniquely artistic product packaging. This act by Britannia was treated as illegal (Copyright Act, 1957).

Defense by Britannia

Britannia’s advocates defended their position by referring to precedents such as Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories PTC and Wal Mart Stores Inc. v. Samara Brothers Inc. (Reckitt & Colman Products Limited v. Borden Inc., 1990). According to these cases, it had to be demonstrated that the modifications made by Britannia were insufficient to distinguish its goods from ITC’s. ITC failed to show that it had a formidable reputation in a particular brand, that its product is relatable to its packaging, and that their product had already built a good reputation within six months. Britannia also argued that color is not an element of distinctiveness for the source of its product.

Conclusion

This case underscores the complexities involved in brand identity and copyright infringement in the packaging industry. Both ITC and Britannia have invested significantly in their products and marketing strategies, highlighting the importance of distinctiveness and originality in packaging to prevent consumer confusion. The outcome of this legal battle could set important precedents for future cases involving similar disputes in the competitive market of consumer goods.

References

• Copyright Act, 1957. (1957). Retrieved from http://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/A1957-14.pdf
• Reckitt & Colman Products Limited v. Borden Inc. (1990). Retrieved from https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1990/12.html