Deliberate Attempt to Steer Close to Petitioner's Get Up and Trade Dress: Calcutta High Court Grants Relief in Passing Off Suit

Deliberate Attempt to Steer Close to Petitioner's Get Up and Trade Dress: Calcutta High Court Grants Relief in Passing Off Suit

Introduction

The Calcutta High Court has granted relief to Exide Industries Limited in a passing off suit against Amara Raja Energy and Mobility Limited, holding that the respondent's product "ELITO" bears deceptive similarities with the petitioner's trade dress and get up.

Factual Background

Exide Industries Limited, a pioneer in the battery industry, has been using the trademark "EXIDE" since 1920 and has a distinctive trade dress featuring the color Red. Amara Raja Energy and Mobility Limited, a trade rival, launched its product "ELITO" in a predominantly Red trade dress, bearing a shattered "O" device and the words "EL", which are similar to the petitioner's registered trademarks. The petitioner also claimed that the overall layout, color combination, and style of presentation were nearly identical to that of the petitioner's products.

Procedural Background

The petitioner filed a suit for infringement and passing off against the respondent, seeking an order of interim injunction. The respondent filed an Affidavit in Opposition, and the court heard the matter. After considering the submissions of both parties, the court reserved its judgment on July 14, 2025, and pronounced the judgment on July 24, 2025.

Contentions of the Parties

Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioner contended that the respondent's product "ELITO" is a deliberate attempt to pass off its goods as those of the petitioner, and that the similarities in the trade dress and get up are likely to cause confusion and deception among consumers. It was further argued that even if the respondent has adopted the color red, the manner of its usage was deceptively similar and aimed at misappropriating the petitioner’s goodwill.

Respondent's Contentions: The respondent argued that the petitioner has no monopoly over the color Red, and that the differences between the two products are sufficient to distinguish them. The respondent also contended that the packaging and trade dress were independently created and denied any intention to copy the petitioner’s get-up.

Court's Observations

The court observed that the respondent's decision to change its trade dress to Red was not coincidental, but a deliberate attempt to create confusion and deception among consumers. The court noted that the respondent's affidavit explaining the reason for the change was self-contradictory and irreconcilable. Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur further remarked that the changes in the respondent’s trade dress appeared to be timed and structured to mimic the petitioner’s identity.

Reasoning & Analysis

The bench of Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur held that the petitioner has a strong case on merits, and that the balance of convenience is in favor of granting relief to the petitioner. The court noted that the respondent's product "ELITO" bears deceptive similarities with the petitioner's trade dress and get up, and that the respondent's actions are likely to cause confusion and deception among consumers. The court emphasized that in passing off actions, it is the overall impression created by the product’s appearance that matters more than individual elements.

Implications

The court's decision highlights the importance of protecting trade dress and get up, and the need for competitors to avoid creating confusion and deception among consumers. It also reinforces the judicial stance that commercial morality and fair competition must be upheld in the marketplace.

Outcome

The court granted relief to the petitioner, restraining the respondent from manufacturing, selling, or marketing its product "ELITO" in its current trade dress and get up. The respondent was given two months to comply with the order. The interim injunction will remain in force until the disposal of the suit.

In this case, the appellant was represented by Mr. S.N. Mookherjee, learned Senior Advocate, along with Mr. Saptarshi Basu and Ms. Shalini Agarwal. Meanwhile, the respondent was represented by Mr. Jayanta Kumar Mitra, Senior Advocate, instructed by Mr. Shaktinath Mukherjee and others.