Exide Industries Limited vs Amara Raja Energy and Mobility Limited
The case of Exide Industries Limited versus Amara Raja Energy and Mobility Limited represents a significant adjudication in the realm of intellectual property law, specifically concerning trademark infringement and passing off. Heard in the Intellectual Property Rights Division of the High Court at Calcutta, this dispute encapsulates the tension between established brand identity and alleged imitation by a trade rival.
Exide, a long-standing leader in the lead-acid battery industry, accused Amara Raja, a key competitor, of adopting a deceptively similar trade dress and trademark elements, threatening its century-long goodwill. This case study delves into the factual matrix, procedural journey, core issues, judicial reasoning, and the legal principles solidified through the judgment, offering insights into the evolving jurisprudence of passing off in India.
Factual Background
Exide Industries Limited, originally incorporated as Associated Battery Makers (Eastern) Coal Ltd., has been a pioneer in manufacturing and marketing lead-acid batteries since 1920 under the trademark “EXIDE.” Over time, Exide has grown into one of South-East Asia’s largest power storage solutions companies, operating manufacturing units across India and maintaining an extensive network of dealers and distributors.
The company’s flagship brand, “EXIDE,” is closely associated with a distinctive red and white trade dress, prominently featuring the color red across its products, packaging, advertisements, and promotional materials. Exide also holds registered trademarks for “EL” (adopted in 1987) and a “shattered O device,” used extensively in its product line, including automotive and industrial batteries. The consistent and prolonged use of these elements has established a strong connection between the red color scheme and Exide’s brand identity in the public mind.
Amara Raja Energy and Mobility Limited, a major competitor, markets its batteries under the “AMARON” brand, traditionally associated with a green trade dress. For three decades, Amara Raja has built its reputation around this green color, evident in its products, advertising campaigns, and publicity materials.
However, the dispute arose when Amara Raja launched a new product, “ELITO,” initially in a blue trade dress for international markets in 2020. Subsequently, in India, Amara Raja shifted to a red trade dress for “ELITO,” incorporating a red and white color combination and a shattered “O” device, which Exide alleged mirrored its own branding. Exide claimed that this shift was a deliberate attempt to capitalize on its goodwill, citing the visual and structural similarities between the products, including the use of the letters “EL” and the shattered “O” device.
Procedural Background
The matter was brought before the High Court at Calcutta, Intellectual Property Rights Division, Original Side, as a suit for infringement and passing off, registered as IP-COM/18/2025, with an interlocutory application (IA NO. GA-COM/1/2025) seeking an injunction to restrain Amara Raja from using the disputed trade dress and mark.
Exide sought to protect its trademark and trade dress rights, arguing that Amara Raja’s actions constituted passing off by creating confusion among consumers. Amara Raja countered that the color red was not distinctive to Exide, was commonly used in the industry, and that no confusion arose from their product.
Core Dispute
The central issue in this case was whether Amara Raja’s adoption of a red trade dress for its “ELITO” product, along with the use of the letters “EL” and a shattered “O” device, constituted passing off by misrepresenting its goods as those of Exide.
Exide argued that its long-standing use of the red and white trade dress, combined with its registered trademarks “EL” and the shattered “O” device, had created a strong association with its brand, making Amara Raja’s similar trade dress deceptively similar and likely to confuse consumers. Amara Raja contended that the color red lacked distinctiveness in the battery industry, citing its use by other brands, and argued that no monopoly could be claimed over a single color. Additionally, they claimed that their product’s branding was sufficiently distinct and that consumer purchasing decisions were not solely based on color, negating any likelihood of confusion.
Discussion on Judgments
Both parties relied on a range of judicial precedents to support their arguments, reflecting the complex interplay of trademark and passing off principles.
Exide cited: Jones vs Hallworth, Cadbury-Schweppes Pty. Ltd. vs The Pub Squash Co Ltd, Cadilla Health Care Ltd. vs Cadilla Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Colgate Palmolive Company & Another vs Anchor Health and Beauty Care Pvt Ltd, Satyam Infoway Ltd. vs Siffynet Solutions Pvt Ltd, Euro Solo Energy Systems Limited vs Everready Industries Limited, Squet International Private Limited vs Sanwal Chand Babulal and Another, Societe des Produits Nestle SA vs Cadbury UK Ltd, Sanjay Soya Private Limited vs Narayani Trading Company, Qualitex Co vs Jacobson Prods Co, and Emami Limited vs Hindustan Unilever Limited.
Amara Raja cited: Kellogg Company vs Pravin Kumar, Dr. Martens Australia Pty Ltd. vs Figgins Holdings Pty Ltd., Cadila Health Care Ltd. vs Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Colgate Palmolive Company Limited & Anr. vs Patel & Anr., Wal-Mart Stores vs Samara Bros, Cipla Ltd. vs MK Pharmaceuticals, Star Bazaar Pvt. Ltd. vs Trent Ltd., Specsavers International Healthcare Ltd. & Ors. vs Asda Stores Ltd., Britannia Industries Ltd. vs ITC Ltd., Godfrey Phillips India Ltd. vs P.T.I Pvt Ltd., Khadi and Village Industries Commission vs Girdhar Industries, Brihan Karan Sugar Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. vs Yashwantrao Mohite Krushna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana, Reckitt & Colman Products Ltd. vs Borden, and R. Johnston & Co. vs Archibald Orr Ewing & Co.
Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge
The court recognized Exide’s century-long use of the red and white trade dress, which had become a prominent and integral feature of its brand identity in the automotive battery industry. The judge noted that Exide’s goodwill was not merely tied to the color red but to the overall trade dress, including the registered “EL” mark and the shattered “O” device, which collectively acted as source identifiers.
The court found Amara Raja’s shift from a blue to a red trade dress for “ELITO” in India, without a credible explanation, to be a deliberate attempt to approximate Exide’s branding. The respondent’s affidavit, claiming feedback from an overseas distributor about the blue color’s lack of vibrancy, was deemed self-serving and contradictory, especially given Amara Raja’s continued use of blue batteries internationally.
The judge rejected Amara Raja’s argument that the color red was common in the industry, distinguishing cases like Britannia Industries Ltd. vs ITC Ltd. The court emphasized the cumulative effect of similarities, bad faith, and intent to deceive as the key indicators of passing off, especially considering the broad consumer base, including less literate buyers, who may rely on visual cues in making purchases.
Final Decision
The court granted an injunction in favor of Exide Industries Limited, restraining Amara Raja Energy and Mobility Limited from using the red trade dress, the “EL” mark, and the shattered “O” device for its “ELITO” product.
The decision was based on the prima facie findings of deceptive similarity, bad faith, and likelihood of confusion. Amara Raja was given two months to comply with the order. The interlocutory application was disposed of with directions for an early hearing of the main suit.
Law Settled in This Case
This case reinforces the principles of passing off under Indian trademark law, particularly the application of the classic trinity test: reputation, misrepresentation, and damage. It clarifies that while a single color cannot be monopolized, a distinctive trade dress comprising a color scheme, specific marks, and design elements can acquire secondary meaning through long and consistent use.
The judgment affirms Section 27 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and the common law remedy of passing off, emphasizing fair competition and discouraging parasitic practices.
Case Details
- Case Title: Exide Industries Limited vs Amara Raja Energy and Mobility Limited
- Date of Order: 24 July 2025
- Case Number: IP-COM/18/2025
- Court: High Court at Calcutta
- Judge: Hon’ble Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur
Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor – Patent and Trademark Attorney
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9990389539
