Calcutta High Court Upholds Exide’s Interim Injunction, Finds Amara Raja’s Red Battery Trade Dress Prima Facie Deceptively Similar
Calcutta High Court Upholds Exide’s Interim Injunction, Finds Amara Raja’s Red Battery Trade Dress Prima Facie Deceptively Similar
Introduction
The Calcutta High Court has upheld an interim injunction in favour of Exide Industries Limited, holding that the predominantly red trade dress adopted by Amara Raja Energy and Mobility Limited for its automotive batteries is prima facie deceptively similar in overall get-up and likely to mislead consumers. The Division Bench reaffirmed that colour, when shown to have acquired distinctiveness, can operate as a source identifier in a passing-off action.
Factual Background
The dispute concerns two major participants in the Indian automotive battery market Exide Industries Limited and Amara Raja Energy and Mobility Limited. Exide instituted a suit alleging infringement of its registered trademarks and passing off in relation to the trade dress of automotive batteries, including its “Exide El” and associated branding elements such as the “shattered O” device.
Exide claimed long-standing and extensive use of a predominantly red trade dress, which according to it had acquired strong market recognition and goodwill. It alleged that Amara Raja’s launch of its “Elito” batteries using a similar red background, white lettering, and closely resembling overall packaging amounted to passing off. The Single Judge had granted interim relief restraining use of the impugned trade dress.
Procedural Background
Aggrieved by the interim order, Amara Raja Energy and Mobility Limited preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court. The appeal was heard by Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi, who examined whether the Single Judge’s discretionary interim injunction called for appellate interference.
Issues
1. Whether Exide’s predominantly red battery trade dress had acquired distinctiveness as a source identifier.
2. Whether Amara Raja’s “Elito” trade dress was prima facie deceptively similar in overall get-up.
3. Whether the Single Judge’s interim injunction warranted interference in appeal.
Contentions of Parties
The appellant, Amara Raja Energy and Mobility Limited, argued that no trader can claim monopoly over a single colour, particularly absent proof of secondary meaning. It contended that automotive batteries are purchased primarily on the basis of technical compatibility, specifications, and price, rather than colour. It was further submitted that the company had previously used blue packaging and had shifted to red based on market feedback, while retaining sufficient distinguishing features in size, layout, and presentation.
On the other hand, Exide Industries Limited contended that its continuous and extensive use of red had made the colour scheme itself a source identifier associated with Exide batteries. It further argued that Amara Raja had deliberately adopted a similar red background with white lettering despite its own earlier campaigns where it associated itself with green branding and identified Exide with red.
Reasoning and Analysis
The Division Bench noted that the material on record prima facie established prior and consistent use of red by Exide as a distinctive feature of its battery products. It found this especially significant because even Amara Raja’s own past branding campaigns had treated colour as a source identifier, positioning its batteries with green and Exide’s with red.
The Court found that Amara Raja had not offered any convincing explanation for its switch to red, despite openly acknowledging in prior campaigns the market association of red with Exide. This conduct, according to the Bench, assumed particular relevance in a passing-off action.
Upon comparing the rival products, the Court observed that both products used substantially the same shade of red, with white lettering on red background, and a highly similar overall layout. It specifically noted the visual similarity between “Exide” and “Elito”, both being five-letter words ending with a shattered “O” style element, which increased the likelihood of confusion.
The Bench held that the so-called added distinguishing matter was insufficient to neutralize the deceptive similarity in the overall trade dress and point-of-sale impression. It emphasized that even if some consumers rely on technical parameters, the likelihood of confusion among average purchasers at the point of sale remained substantial.
Finding that Exide had established a strong prima facie case and that the balance of convenience lay in its favour, the Court held that the Single Judge’s discretionary order did not warrant appellate interference.
Decision
The Calcutta High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Amara Raja Energy and Mobility Limited and upheld the interim injunction granted in favour of Exide Industries Limited, restraining use of the impugned red battery trade dress pending disposal of the suit.
In this case the appellant was represented by 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.
