Introduction:
Exide Industries Limited vs. Amara Raja Energy and Mobility Limited (IA No. GA‑COM/1/2025) saw the Calcutta High Court’s IPR Division, under Justice Ravi Kishan Kapur, grant an interim injunction in favor of Exide. Exide had challenged Amara Raja’s launch of its “ELITO” automotive batteries in a predominantly red trade dress—featuring the “EL” mark and a shattered “O” device—arguing that this packaging closely mimicked Exide’s century‑old branding and would cause consumer confusion.
Arguments of the Plaintiff (Exide Industries):
Exide asserted exclusive goodwill in its red colour scheme, the letters “EL,” and the shattered “O,” with the latter being used since 1973 and the mark “EL” registered since 1987. The packaging, product-get-up, and visual identity had become source identifiers through prolonged use. Exide argued that Amara Raja’s shift to red in India—a stark departure from its global green identity—was a calculated attempt to reap from Exide’s market reputation. They claimed cumulative resemblance among color, marks, and device would mislead consumers, especially in rural or semi-literate markets where purchase decisions rely heavily on visual recall.
Arguments of the Defendant (Amara Raja):
Amara Raja contended that the change in packaging color for the ELITO batteries was a market-driven choice to make the products appear “bright and vibrant” and “stand out,” with no intent to imitate Exide. They maintained that color per se cannot be monopolised, and that their ELITO brand—with its own identity—was not confusingly similar. They also challenged the issuance of leave to dispense with pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, arguing Exide had prior knowledge of ELITO before February 2025.
Court’s Judgment and Analysis:
The Court allowed the injunction application and restrained Amara Raja from using the red trade dress in India, observing that:
Colour with secondary meaning in a sector can serve as source identifier and attract protection—Exide’s red had acquired such significance.
The cumulative resemblance of the inbound trade dress—including red packaging, “EL” mark, and fractured “O” device—amounted to misrepresentation likely to cause confusion, fulfilling the trinity of passing off: goodwill, misrepresentation, and damage.
Amara Raja’s reasoning for shifting to red lacked credibility. Their allegiance to green in other markets and absence of market research or dealer evidence pointed to bad faith. The packaging choice appeared deliberately close to Exide’s get-up, not coincidental.
The Court held that a direct competitor deliberately mimicking another’s trade dress to leverage existing goodwill is not legitimate competition but misappropriation.
On Section 12A, the Court rejected Amara Raja’s plea to revoke leave, finding no evidence Exide had actual knowledge of ELITO prior to February 2025. Mere public availability was insufficient to negate Exide’s right to dispense with mediation.
Justice Kapur emphasized that in consumer goods segments where brand recall rests on visual identity, imperfect recollection demands higher scrutiny against similar appearance. The Court invoked established precedents including Cadila Health Care v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals and Reckitt & Colman v. Borden, underscoring protection against cumulative resemblance and deliberate imitation.
Consequently, Exide’s plea for interim protection was upheld. Amara Raja was restrained nationwide from using the impugned red trade dress and imagery within two months.
The judgment sends a strong message: competition is lawful, but imitation—particularly visual mimicry by deliberate design—is actionable and impermissible.