The Case Itc Limited Against Britannia Industry

This case is between big firms ITC and Britannia because of copyright infringement leading to unfair competition. ITC launched a product named Sunfeast Farmlite digestive biscuits in Feb 2016 and Britaannia launched its product Nutri choice Digestive zero biscuit in July 2016. According to ITC, if placed together both products are indistinguishable to unwary customer. The Plaintiff, ITC limited filed a case against defendant Britannia Industries ltd. for seeking to restrain the defendant from violating its rights in the Plaintiff’s packaging of Sufeast fiarmlite digestive biscuits by using a confusingly deceptive similar packaging for its Nutri Choice zero biscuit. Under the order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the code of Civil Procedure 1908(CPC), ITC seeks an interim injunction to restrain Britannia from continuing to use that packaging for its Nutri Choice Digestive Zero biscuit. During the case it was also pointed out that Britannia was selling digestive biscuits under the name “Nutri Choice” for several years but when ITC launched its Sunfeast Farmlite Digestive all good biscuit with “No maida” and “No added sugar”, Britannia filed a complaint before the ASCI(Advertising standards council of India) which resulted in a failed attempt. After this Britannia introduced Nutri Choice Zero Biscuit claiming the same things about maida and added sugar in a packaging similar to that of Sunfeast Farmlite. Britannia copied the unique color coding, methods and placements of various elements of ITC’s packaging. This was a case of triple identity and it is bound to lead to confusion and deception.

Britannia made an offer to ITC stating that they would substitute the blue color with dark blue, which was not accepted by ITC. Even though Britannia was selling the same version of Nutri choice Digestive internationally with different packaging, it tried to leverage the brand image of ITC in India by using indistinguishable packaging. This is a clear case of infringement of ITC’s copyrights in the said packaging. ITC gave a counter offer by stating that if Britannia starts adopting their international packaging or change the color to other than any shade of Blue then ITC would have no objection. On this offer, Britannia argued that blue color is being used by them for a wide variety of biscuits, at the same time this color is supposed to reflect “World Digestive Day”.

Both parties were trying to ensure that other party gives up the color blue of the packaging but no common ground was being established between the two. Then ITC submitted various uniquely distinctive feature of ITC’s packaging, record of sales of their product since its inception and their marketing expenditure for the same. It was pointed out that because of brand image of ITC, within a small period of 6 months the product has made sales of more than Rs. 5 crores and ITC also invested around Rs. 14 crores in its marketing. Even price of the two products was same (Rs 25). Under section 51 of Copyright Act, 1957 it was stated that by using a deceptively similar packaging for their product Britannia constitutes infringement of the original work in the uniquely artistic product packaging of ITC. This act by Britannia was treated as illegal.

Britannia’s advocates defended by referring to the decision in case of Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories PTC, case of Wal Mart Stores Inc. v. Samara Brothers Inc, Reckitt & Colman Products Limited v. Borden Inc. (1990). According to this, it had to be demonstrated that modification done by Britannia were insufficient to distinguish its goods from ITC’s, ITC had failed to show that it has formidable reputation in a particular brand, it’s product is relatable to its packaging and their product had already built good reputation within 6 months. Britannia also stated that color in not an element of distinctiveness for source of its product.