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.<\/p>\n
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<\/strong> (user claimed since 1987) and a shattered-O device mark<\/strong> (user claimed since 1996), both deployed consistently in red-and-white packaging.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n The court drew from Kerly’s Law of Trade Marks and Trade Names<\/em> (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.<\/p>\n This reasoning also answered Amaron’s reliance on Brihan Karan Sugar Syndicate<\/em> 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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<\/em> was therefore satisfied in Exide’s favour.<\/p>\n Amara Raja argued that the prayers in the Notice of Motion were defective and that under Bachhaj Nahar<\/em>, 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.<\/p>\n In view of the observations and the arguments presented by both parties, the Division Bench held that:<\/p>\nIssues before the Court<\/h3>\n
\n
\n
\n
Amara Raja’s Arguments<\/strong><\/h2>\n
\n
\n
\n
Exide’s Arguments<\/strong><\/h2>\n
\n
\n
\n
Court’s Observations and Analysis<\/h2>\n
Colour as Source Identifier: What Amaron’s Own Campaign Proved<\/h3>\n
The Visual Test and the “Added Matters” Argument<\/h3>\n
The Nature of the Consumer<\/h3>\n
On the Defective Prayers<\/h3>\n
Findings<\/h2>\n
\n
\n
\n