'Reaping From Rival's Cultivated Soil Is Impermissible': Calcutta HC Grants Injunction To Exide Industries Against Infringement Of Trade Dress

While allowing an injunction application by Exide Industries limited against a competitior who was infriniging on its trade dress, the Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Ravi Kishan Kapur held," “The fact that an existing competitor in comparison to a new entrant in the market has deliberately, intentionally and in a calculated manner attempted to reap from the cultivated soil of a trade rival is impermissible.”Amara Raja Energy and Mobility Ltd. was restrained by the court from using a deceptively similar, predominantly red coloured trade dress within India.Exide Industries Ltd. filed a suit against Amara Raja Energy and Mobility Ltd., alleging infringement and passing off concerning the launch of Amara Raja's “ELITO” automotive batteries in predominantly red packaging, featuring a "shattered O" device and the use of the letters “EL.” Exide claimed exclusivity and goodwill in the red color scheme, the “EL” mark, and the shattered O device based on long-standing use and trademark registrations. Amara Raja, traditionally associated with green branding, shifted to red for the ELITO batteries, prompting legal action by Exide. Historically, Exide has always used the colour red for its products and Amara Raja has used green, and Exide claimed that Amara Raja is seeking to violate such demarcation by launching a red coloured battery. The matter was heard at great length from the month of March to July, 2025.On July 25, 2025, Court granted Exide's plea for interim protection, restraining Amara Raja from using a deceptively similar predominantly red coloured trade dress within India.Red is not just a colour but a visual identifierIt was argued that the Petitioner, Exide Industries Limited, operating in India since 1920, has for over a century used red as its flagship trade colour across products, packaging, advertisements, and corporate literature.The Court noted that colour by itself may not be monopolised, but where a specific colour such as Exide's use of red acquires a secondary meaning in a particular industry, it may serve as a source identifier and thereby be entitled to legal protection. The Court noted that Exide's use of the red color, the “EL” mark (registered since 1987), and the shattered “O” device (since 1973) had achieved significant goodwill and recognition in the automotive battery sector. The rival products were found to share striking similarities in color, marks, and trade dress. The shift by Amara Raja from blue batteries internationally to red in India was highlighted as suspicious, especially as their own affidavit suggested the change was to “stand out” using a “bright, vibrant” color, yet no justification was provided for the specific choice of red—the signature color of Exide. The Court found Respondent's change to a red color scheme for ELITO in India to be deliberate, with intent to “sail closer” to Exide's get-up, resulting in calculated resemblance and potential consumer confusion.The Court drew from the Supreme Court's analysis in Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. to highlight the importance of protecting consumers from confusion based on imperfect recollection, especially where visual cues rather than names play an important role in identifying products. This is particularly relevant in sectors like automotive batteries, where many buyers, including those in rural and semi-literate markets, rely on the look of the product more than on technical specifications.Cumulative resemblance and deliberate imitationThe Defendant, Amara Raja Energy And Mobility Limited's launch of its “ELITO” battery line, which was previously sold in blue packaging overseas in a red trade dress, exclusively for the Indian market raised eyebrows. The product featured not only the red colour scheme but also adopted mark EL, which comprises the brand “EL” of Exide and a shattered “O” device elements closely associated with Exide's long-standing brand identity.The Court found the similarities were neither incidental nor innocent. Relying on the test formulated in Reckitt & Colman Products Ltd. v. Borden, the Court observed that the cumulative resemblance across trade dress elements, including colour, configuration, lettering, and packagin,g constituted misrepresentation likely to cause confusion in the minds of consumers. This, combined with the evidence of bad faith, met the classic trinity of passing off: goodwill, misrepresentation, and likelihood of damage.The Court underscored that deliberate imitation, especially by a direct market competitor, must be scrutinised with greater care. Drawing on Satyam Infoway Ltd. v. Siffynet Solutions (P) Ltd., the Court observed that even absent express intent to deceive, actions that result in consumer confusion are actionable and that bad faith, when present, makes the inference of deception all the more compelling.Bad Faith, Contradictions, and Evasive ConductThe Court was particularly critical of the Defendant's conduct during litigation. Despite ...

'Reaping From Rival's Cultivated Soil Is Impermissible': Calcutta HC Grants Injunction To Exide Industries Against Infringement Of Trade Dress

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags