Seeing Red: Calcutta High Court Upholds Exide's Trade Dress Injunction Against Amaron

Summary

Exide Industries Limited, India's largest automotive battery manufacturer, sued Amara Raja Energy and Mobility Limited, maker of the rival Amaron brand, for trademark infringement and passing off, alleging that Amaron's new "Elito" battery range copied Exide's distinctive red trade dress along with its registered EL wordmark and shattered-O device mark. A Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court granted an interim injunction, which Amara Raja challenged before the Division Bench. The Division Bench upheld the injunction, finding that Amara Raja had itself publicly associated the colour red with Exide, through a social media campaign denigrating red and championing Amaron's own green branding, and could not now claim that red lacked significance as a source identifier. The ruling is a significant statement on how a company's own competitive conduct can be turned against it in a passing off dispute centred on colour.

Background

In India’s automotive battery duopoly, two players have spent years competing not just on performance and price, but on colour. One built its identity around green. The other built it around red. We are sure you know which two brands we are referring to.

Exide Industries Limited (“Exide”) has packaged and marketed its automotive batteries in a predominantly red trade dress for decades, claiming continuous use since 1920. It holds two registered trademarks directly relevant to this dispute: the wordmark EL (user claimed since 1987) and a shattered-O device mark (user claimed since 1996), both deployed consistently in red-and-white packaging.

Amara Raja Energy and Mobility Limited (hereinafter referred to as “Amara Raja” or “Amaron”), the company behind the Amaron battery brand and the only other major player in India’s automotive battery market, has, by contrast, publicly identified itself with the colour green. Amaron’s annual reports described green as its signature colour. More pointedly, during the COVID-19 period, Amaron ran a social media campaign denigrating the colour red, promoting green, and inviting consumers to draw precisely this colour-based distinction between Exide and Amaron.

In 2022, Amara Raja filed applications to register a new mark, “Elito”, a five-letter word in white lettering on a predominantly red background, with a stylised element at its close that Exide contended closely mirrors its shattered-O device. The Elito range was launched in India in 2023 under the Amaron umbrella. Exide responded by approaching the Calcutta High Court, seeking interim and permanent relief for trademark infringement and passing off. A Single Judge, by order dated July 25, 2025, granted interim injunctions restraining Amara Raja from using the impugned trade dress. Aggrieved by the orders of the Single Judge, Amaron filed the present appeal before the Division Bench.

Issues before the Court

- - Whether Exide established a prima facie case of passing off on the basis of the colour red as a source identifier in the automotive battery segment
  - Whether the cumulative similarities between the Elito trade dress and Exide’s registered marks and get-up, including the colour red, the shattered-O device, and the EL element, constituted deceptive resemblance
  - Whether Amaron’s own prior conduct, publicly associating red with Exide and green with itself, was relevant to the passing off analysis
  - Whether the prayers in the injunction petition were defective so as to oust the court’s jurisdiction to grant relief
  - Whether the added distinguishing features on the Elito packaging were sufficient to avoid consumer confusion

Amara Raja’s Arguments

- - The Single Judge’s injunction effectively granted Exide a monopoly over the entire colour red in all its shades, contrary to the finding within the same order that Exide did not claim such a monopoly.
  - No single colour can be monopolised in an industry where multiple players use it, particularly absent proof of secondary meaning; Amaron itself had used colours other than green, and Exide’s own documents showed white and other coloured batteries.
  - Of Exide’s 64 registered trademarks on record, only two contained the shattered-O and EL elements, and the Single Judge found no specific goodwill or reputation attaching to those marks.
  - Automotive batteries are not FMCG products purchased on impulse; buyers make informed choices based on the battery already fitted in their vehicle, brand name, and price, making colour-based confusion between Exide and Amaron implausible.
  - The Elito packaging contains distinctive elements, which are sufficient to distinguish the product from Exide’s and satisfy the “added matters” test under Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma vs. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories (AIR 1964 SC 1403).
  - Amaron adopted red after receiving dealer feedback in overseas markets in December 2021 and September 2022 that blue did not stand out in retail clutter. This was a legitimate commercial reason unrelated to any intent to imitate Exide.
  - Relying on Brihan Karan Sugar Syndicate Private Limited vs. Yashwantrao Mohite Krushna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana (2024) 2 SCC 577 and the US decision in Forney Indus vs. Daco of Mo, Amara Raja argued that reputation and goodwill in a specific colour must be positively established and that inconsistent trade dress use defeats such a claim.

Exide’s Arguments

- - Amaron had infringed Exide’s registered marks EL and shattered-O and had passed off the Elito range as Exide products by adopting an overall get-up deliberately calculated to deceive.
  - Exide has used the colour red in its automotive battery packaging since 1920; the red-and-white combination has become a distinguishing feature of the Exide brand, functioning as a source identifier through long and extensive use supported by advertisements, IPL sponsorships, and retail hoardings.
  - Amara Raja, as a shareholder of Exide, had access to its internal information and adopted the Elito name and red trade dress in deliberate bad faith.
  - The evolution of the Elito mark from an initial design incorporating the Greek letter Xi in blue, through a December 2022 application for the present red-and-white Elito mark, involved the systematic adoption of Exide’s features: the five-letter word, the EL element, the shattered-O device, and the red-and-white colour combination.
  - Amaron’s own social media campaign denigrating red and promoting green expressly invited consumers to associate red exclusively with Exide; having done so, Amara Raja could not now claim that red held no significance as a source identifier.
  - Relying on R. Johnston & Co. vs. Archibald Orr Ewing & Co. (1882) and Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd vs. Pub Squash Co Pty Ltd (1981), Exide argued that the accumulation of similarities points to calculated bad faith efforts to sail as close as possible to Exide’s trade dress.
  - Exide and Amaron batteries are placed side by side on retail shelves; buyers in many parts of the country may not make brand-name distinctions.

Court’s Observations and Analysis

Colour as Source Identifier: What Amaron’s Own Campaign Proved

The Division Bench’s analysis turned on a striking feature of the record: Amaron had, during the COVID-19 period, run a public social media campaign actively denigrating the colour red and promoting green as its own signature colour, explicitly inviting consumers to distinguish Exide from Amaron on the basis of colour. Members of the public, responding to that campaign, associated red with Exide and green with Amaron.

The court drew from Kerly’s Law of Trade Marks and Trade Names (17th edition) the proposition that in a passing off action premised on get-up, the claimant must prove that the get-up in question indicates its goods and no one else’s. In the present case, Amaron had itself discharged that burden for Exide: by publicly and contemporaneously claiming green as its own colour and associating red exclusively with Exide, Amara Raja had conceded, in effect, that colour was a meaningful source identifier in this market, and that red was Exide’s. The court held that it was not open to Amara Raja to now contend that the colour red carried no significance as a source identifier.

This reasoning also answered Amaron’s reliance on Brihan Karan Sugar Syndicate for the proposition that goodwill and reputation in a specific get-up must be positively established. The court found that the positive establishment came not only from Exide’s own evidence of long use, such as through advertisements, IPL sponsorships, shop hoardings, and marks incorporating red, but from Amaron’s own conduct, which had publicly ratified the association between Exide and red.

The Visual Test and the “Added Matters” Argument

The court applied the visual test and affirmed that the eye remains the primary test for the degree of resemblance in a passing off action. Having physically examined the competing boxes and batteries placed before it, the court found the shade of red used by Amaron in the Elito packaging to be the exact same shade as Exide’s, disagreeing with Amara Raja’s submission to the contrary.

On the “added matters” defence, that prominently displayed origin identifiers and distinguishing elements on the Elito packaging were sufficient to avoid confusion, the court found that the added matters on the Elito packaging were not distinguishing features; they were in many respects additional similarities. Elito and Exide are both five-letter words. Both feature a shattered-O at the end, and both use white lettering on a red background. The court found that rather than distinguishing itself, Amaron had consciously tried to come as close as possible to Exide’s pre-existing trade dress.

The Nature of the Consumer

The court acknowledged the parties’ competing submissions on who buys an automotive battery and how. Amara Raja contended that purchases are driven by what battery is already fitted in the vehicle, brand recognition, and price, not colour. Exide argued that Exide and Amaron batteries are placed side by side on retail shelves and that buyers, particularly in smaller markets, may not make brand-name distinctions.

The court resolved this by noting that not all buyers proceed on brand name or pre-fitted specification. There exists a real category of buyers who make a choice at the retail shelf on the basis of what is available, and for those buyers, given the present trade dress of both products, the possibility of deception is distinct. The visual test under Satyam Infoway was therefore satisfied in Exide’s favour.

On the Defective Prayers

Amara Raja argued that the prayers in the Notice of Motion were defective and that under Bachhaj Nahar, a court can only grant relief with reference to the pleadings. The Division Bench acknowledged that the prayers were “not happily drafted” but held that, as framed, they did not oust the court’s jurisdiction to grant relief for passing off or infringement. The discretion of the learned Single Judge, having been exercised after a thorough evaluation of the record, did not warrant interference.

Findings

In view of the observations and the arguments presented by both parties, the Division Bench held that:

- - Exide had, on a prima facie basis, established that the colour red functions as a source identifier for its automotive batteries, supported both by its own evidence of long use and by Amaron’s own contemporaneous acknowledgment of the red-green colour distinction in the market.
  - Amaron, having publicly associated Exide with red and itself with green through a targeted social media campaign, could not assert that the colour red lacked significance as a source identifier; Amara Raja had excluded itself from the colour red by its own competitive conduct.
  - The shade of red used by Amaron in the Elito trade dress is the same shade as that used by Exide, and the cumulative similarities between the competing trade dress, such as the five-letter mark, shattered-O device, white lettering, red background, etc., are deceptively close and do not satisfy the “added matters” test under Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma.
  - The possibility of consumer confusion among retail buyers making shelf-side choices is distinct.
  - The prayers in the injunction petition, though imperfectly drafted, did not deprive the court of jurisdiction to grant interim relief.
  - The Single Judge’s exercise of discretion in granting the interim injunction disclosed no ground for interference; the balance of convenience and irreparable injury analysis favoured Exide.
  - The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Case Citation: Amara Raja Energy and Mobility Limited vs. Exide Industries Limited, TEMPAPO-IPD/7/2025, I.A. Nos. GA-COM/1/2025 & GA-COM/2/2025, Calcutta High Court (Intellectual Property Rights Appellate Division), decided on April 2, 2026. Available on https://indiankanoon.org/doc/155600883/

Authored by Gaurav Mishra, IP Attorney, BananaIP Counsels

Seeing Red: Calcutta High Court Upholds Exide’s Trade Dress Injunction Against Amaron