Exide Industries Limited v. Amara Raja Energy and Mobility Limited

In a recent decision, the Calcutta High Court restrained Amara Raja Energy and Mobility Ltd. from using a red and white trade dress, the term “EL,” and a shattered “O” device on its ELITO-branded batteries, in a trade mark infringement and passing-off suit filed by Exide Industries Limited. Exide, active since 1920, claimed exclusivity over its red-coloured trade dress, which has been consistently used across products, packaging, and advertising, and has acquired source significance. It also owns rights over the word “EL” and the shattered “O” device, adopted in the years 1987 and 1973, respectively. The respondent, a key competitor in the battery market, offers its products under the AMARON mark, widely recognized for its green-coloured trade dress. Notably, the respondent had previously, on certain occasions, mocked Exide’s red trade dress in advertisements.

In 2020, the respondent launched its ELITO product in blue trade dress for overseas markets but later introduced a red trade dress for the same product in India. The court questioned this shift, especially given the similarities with Exide’s trade dress, to which, the respondent claimed that the blue packaging lacked visual appeal. The court was not convinced, especially as the blue packaging continued abroad while the red was adopted only in India. The court observed that the respondent had deliberately moved closer to the petitioner’s get-up, and reiterated that a court may examine intent when assessing the likelihood of misrepresentation.

The overall similarities, including the red coloured trade dress, “EL” prefix, and shattered “O” device, were sufficient to create a likelihood of confusion, particularly in a market like India where many consumers may have limited literacy or brand awareness. Given the respondent’s status as Exide’s primary competitor, the court held it had a heightened duty to act prudently when adopting similar marks, as constructive knowledge could be imputed. The court stressed that while monopoly over a single colour is rarely granted but a trade dress with long and consistent use that acquires secondary meaning is protectable. Noting the respondent’s inconsistent explanations and removal of online material during the hearing, the court found elements of bad faith and granted an injunction with a two-month compliance period. Read the judgement copy here.