Calcutta High Court Upholds Injunction In Favour Of Exide Industries In Battery Trade Dress Dispute

The Calcutta High Court has upheld an interim injunction in favour of Exide Industries Limited, holding that Amara Raja Energy and Mobility Limited's red trade dress for automotive batteries is prima facie deceptively similar in overall get-up and likely to mislead consumers.

A Division Bench of Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi, in a judgment delivered on April 02, 2026, dismissed an appeal filed by Amara Raja challenging the Single Judge's order granting interim relief in favour of Exide.

The dispute involves two major players in the Indian automotive battery market. Exide had filed a suit alleging infringement of its registered trademarks and passing off against Amara Raja in relation to the trade dress of automotive batteries, including its “Elito” product.

Exide claimed long-standing use and reputation in a predominantly red trade dress, along with registered marks such as “EL” and the “shattered O” device. It alleged that Amara Raja adopted a similar red colour scheme and overall get-up for its “Elito” batteries, amounting to passing off.

The Single Judge had granted interim relief restraining use of the impugned trade dress, which was challenged in appeal.

The appellant argued that no party can claim a monopoly over a single colour, particularly in the absence of secondary meaning, and that batteries are not purchased based on colour but on technical compatibility and price.

It also contended that it had earlier used blue packaging and adopted red based on market feedback and that differences in packaging, size, and features were sufficient to distinguish the products.

Exide, on the other hand, contended that its consistent use of red had acquired distinctiveness and functioned as a source identifier. It further argued that Amara Raja had deliberately adopted a similar colour scheme and overall trade dress, including white lettering on a red background, to pass off its products as those of Exide. It also pointed to Amara Raja's earlier branding strategy, identifying itself with the colour green while associating Exide with red.

The Division Bench noted that the materials on record prima facie establish that Exide had been using the colour red as a distinctive feature of its product prior to Amara Raja. It also observed that both parties had treated colour as a source identifier in their branding, including Amara Raja's earlier campaigns distinguishing its products through the colour green.

The Court found that Amara Raja had not adequately explained why it adopted the red colour despite acknowledging its association with Exide, noting that such conduct is significant in a passing-off action.

On examining the competing products, the Bench observed that both predominantly used the same shade of red and that their packaging and overall trade dress were similar enough to potentially mislead an average consumer.

The court also held that even if some consumers rely on brand names or prior usage, the likelihood of confusion cannot be ruled out where products are placed side-by-side and choices are made at the point of sale.

The Bench held:

“The so-called added matters are not sufficient to distinguish between the two products. The added matters have similarities which are deceptively close to the matter used by the respondent. Elito and Exide are both 5 letter words. Both have shattered O at the end. Both are in white with a red background. There is hardly any material of any distinction in the trade dress of the appellant to qualify as distinguishing the product of the appellant from that of the respondent.”

Finding that Exide had made out a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience lay in its favour, the Court held that no interference was warranted with the discretionary order of the Single Judge.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed and the interim injunction was upheld.

For Appellant: Senior Advocate Jayanta Kumar Mitra, Senior Advocate Abhrajit Mitra, Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, Advocate Ankit Virmani, Advocate Sarosij Dasgupta, Advocate Nandini Khaitan, Advocate Shreya Singh, Advocate Pratik Shanu, Advocate Vasundhara Bakhru, Advocate Ruchika Agarwala, Advocate Suryaneel Das, Advocate Oindrila Ghoshal

For Respondent: Senior Advocate S.N. Mookherjee, Senior Advocate Ranjan Bachawat, Senior Advocate Ratnanko Banerjee, Senior Advocate Sayantan Bose, Senior Advocate Debnath Ghosh, Senior Advocate Rudraman Bhattacharyya, Advocate Sayan Roy Choudhary, Advocate Dhruv Chaddha, Advocate Sagnik Bose, Advocate Paritosh Sinha, Advocate K. K. Pandey, Advocate Suhrita Majumdar, Advocate Kironjit B. Majumder, Advocate Sonia Nandy