The Calcutta High Court has upheld an interim injunction in a cigarette-brand dispute, ruling that mandatory health warnings form part of the packaging consumers encounter when assessing deceptive similarity.
In Pravin Kumar v ITC, 2026:CHC-OS:400-DB, the appellant argued that the statutory warning covering 85 per cent of a cigarette packet should be excluded and only the remaining branded area compared. The division bench rejected that artificial separation.
Consumers see the packet as a whole, the court said. Because the warning leaves little space for distinctive branding, structural similarities in the remaining design may heighten rather than reduce confusion, particularly where a lower-priced product resembles an established pack. The single judge’s finding of triable infringement and passing-off issues was a plausible view and disclosed no legal error or perversity warranting appellate interference. The appeal and the cross-objection were dismissed.
