Introduction
In a landmark trade dress infringement case, the Calcutta High Court, in Exide Industries Ltd. v. Amara Raja Energy and Mobility Ltd., reaffirmed the significance of visual identity, distinctiveness, and consumer goodwill as protectable facets of intellectual property under Indian law. Section 2(zb) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 defines a “trade mark” to include the shape of goods, packaging, combination of colours, and other visual elements, thereby providing statutory recognition to trade dress as part of trademark rights. Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur delivered a strongly worded and impactful judgment in favour of Exide Industries, emphasising that calculated imitation of a competitor’s branding, designed to mislead or cause confusion among consumers, constitutes actionable infringement. This decision reinforces the principle that the law safeguards not only word marks and logos, but also the overall get-up and trade dress that signify a product’s commercial origin.
Exide’s Legacy vs. Amara Raja’s Red Gamble
Exide, a pioneer in automotive and industrial battery manufacturing since 1920, initiated legal proceedings against Amara Raja after the latter launched its “ELITO” line of batteries using a red-and-white trade dress, a stylized “shattered O” device, and the mark “EL”, elements that had long been associated with Exide’s identity. Traditionally, Amara Raja’s branding under “AMARON” had leaned on a green visual theme, making the sudden adoption of red for its new product in India not only stark but suspicious.
This shift, according to Exide, was a deliberate strategy to create market confusion and benefit from Exide’s legacy and brand goodwill. While Amara Raja continued to sell blue-packaged ELITO batteries abroad, it was only in India that it adopted a red packaging style, red being the signature colour of Exide for over a century.
Trade Dress 101: When Colours Speak Louder Than Words
The case revolved around the concept of trade dress, which are the non-verbal elements like colour, packaging, design, and layout, that function as source identifiers in the marketplace. Justice Kapur emphasised that while the law does not permit monopolisation of a colour in the abstract, when a particular colour acquires secondary meaning and becomes strongly associated with a specific brand in the minds of consumers, it falls within the ambit of protectable trade dress. This principle aligns with international jurisprudence, notably Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., 514 U.S. 159 (1995), where the U.S. Supreme Court held that a single colour, once distinctive through use, can function as a trademark. Indian courts have echoed this approach, as seen in Cadbury India Ltd. v. ITC Ltd., where the Delhi High Court recognised the protectability of the purple-and-gold colour scheme for chocolate products.
In Exide, the plaintiff had consistently employed the colour red across its branding—from battery casings and packaging to advertisements and corporate literature. The Court acknowledged that this long-standing and exclusive use had transformed red into a distinctive visual identifier for Exide’s products, meriting statutory protection under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. This reasoning is consistent with other landmark Indian trade dress cases, including ITC Ltd. v. Britannia Industries Ltd. (Good Day v. Mom’s Magic, Nov. 8, 2023)[1], Britannia Industries Ltd. v. ITC Ltd. & Ors. (Nutri Choice Digestive v. Sunfeast Farmlite 5 Seed Digestive, Apr. 5, 2021), and Colgate-Palmolive Co. v. Anchor Health & Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd. (Oct. 29, 2003), where the judiciary reiterated that distinctive non-verbal elements, be it colour schemes, packaging layouts, or overall get-up, deserve legal protection when they signify a product’s commercial origin and prevent consumer confusion.
The Court’s Findings: Copying, Concealment, and Confusion
Justice Kapur undertook a meticulous examination of the factual matrix, identifying several indicators of bad faith and calculated imitation. Foremost among these was the defendant’s sudden adoption of a red trade dress, despite Amara Raja’s long-standing and well-documented preference for green as its dominant branding colour. Equally telling was the incorporation of the “EL” mark and the shattered “O” device, distinctive visual elements that had been in continuous use by Exide and were firmly embedded in its brand identity. These similarities, in the Court’s assessment, were too precise to be the product of mere coincidence.
The concerns deepened when it emerged that, during the course of the proceedings, key online promotional material and product images, previously displaying Amara Raja’s blue battery variants, had been quietly deleted or altered. Such conduct was interpreted as an active attempt to suppress unfavourable evidence, reinforcing the inference of deceptive intent. In framing its decision, the Court’s approach resonated with international trademark and trade dress jurisprudence, which condemns slavish copying as undermining both fair competition and consumer trust. At the same time, Justice Kapur acknowledged, the importance of balancing enforcement against the danger of overextending intellectual property protection, ensuring that legitimate product differentiation and healthy market competition are not unduly restrained.
Bad Faith, Contradictions, and Weak Justifications
Amara Raja’s defence rested on the claim that market feedback had prompted the shift to red, as blue allegedly failed to attract sufficient consumer attention. Yet, no supporting dealer affidavits, consumer surveys, or market research data were produced to substantiate this assertion. The Court found such a bare explanation unconvincing, particularly in light of the contradiction that the same product continued to be sold in blue packaging in international markets. If visibility alone were the concern, the selective colour change limited to the Indian market defied commercial logic. Coupled with the adoption of Exide-like visual elements, this pointed to a deliberate strategy to mislead Indian consumers, especially in a market where colour often plays a heightened role in brand recognition due to literacy disparities. Significantly, the Court’s reasoning was sharpened by its earlier observation on the deletion of promotional material and product images, conduct from which it drew a negative inference. This aligns with settled procedural jurisprudence in intellectual property disputes, where suppression or destruction of material evidence is treated as an aggravating factor, reinforcing judicial disapproval of parties who seek to tilt the evidentiary balance through concealment.
Legal Reasoning: Passing Off and Consumer Protection
Justice Kapur reaffirmed that trade dress infringement can succeed even without trademark registration, provided the plaintiff establishes the classic trinity of passing off:
- Goodwill in the mark or dress,
- Misrepresentation likely to deceive the public, and
- Resulting damage or likelihood of damage.
This principle applied squarely to the case at hand. Exide had established goodwill in its visual branding over several decades. The cumulative resemblance, similar colour, shape, size, marks, and design, amounted to misrepresentation. And given the market overlap and identical product segments, the damage to Exide’s brand and reputation was almost inevitable.
The Court emphasized that consumer confusion need not be proven by expert witnesses or surveys alone. In markets where visual indicators are paramount, especially among less literate consumers, imperfect recollection becomes a crucial consideration. When two products look and feel too similar, deception becomes a real risk, one that the Court must guard against.
Section 12A Roadblock? Not This Time
Amara Raja sought to invalidate the suit by alleging non-compliance with the mandatory pre-institution mediation requirement under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Relying on the fact that Exide had allegedly known about the ELITO product for several months, the defendant argued that mediation ought to have been pursued before litigation. The Court rejected this procedural objection, noting that Exide had sought urgent interim relief, bringing the case within the well-recognised exception to Section 12A’s mediation requirement as affirmed by the Supreme Court in Patil Automation Pvt. Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers Pvt. Ltd., (2022) 10 SCC 1. In addressing the factual dispute, the Court held that there was no proof of Exide having direct, actual awareness of the infringing product prior to February 2025; mere public availability or market rumours did not establish such awareness. While this “knowledge” finding was specific to the facts, the ruling underscores that procedural objections under Section 12A must be grounded in statutory requirements and supported by concrete evidence, future litigants cannot rely on conjecture alone to defeat a suit.
The Final Verdict: “Lakshmanrekha Has Been Crossed”
Justice Kapur held that the line between legitimate competition and calculated misrepresentation had been crossed. Using evocative language, he concluded that “the Rubicon or Lakshmanrekha has been crossed” by Amara Raja. The Court ruled in favour of Exide, granting a nationwide injunction that restrained Amara Raja from using the infringing red trade dress and gave them two months to comply.
Importantly, the Court acknowledged that while copying in a competitive market is not always unlawful, deliberate copying of brand identity, especially by a rival with knowledge of consumer behaviour and market psychology, must be carefully scrutinized.
Larger Implications for Indian IP Law
This judgment represents a crucial reinforcement of trade dress protection in India. It recognizes that modern brand identity is not restricted to names and logos but includes a holistic combination of colours, shapes, layout, and visual elements. These markers are especially important in industries with mass-market penetration, like consumer batteries, where products are frequently chosen based on appearance rather than technical specifications.
At the same time, some commentators caution that overly broad protection for simple colour schemes could risk stifling competition, particularly for newer or smaller businesses that depend on common colours to gain visibility. If exclusive rights are granted without strict proof of distinctiveness or secondary meaning, rival firms might be unfairly barred from using basic design elements that consumers expect to encounter. This is why courts must balance brand protection with the functionality doctrine and narrowly tailored remedies—ensuring that the law shields genuine goodwill without blocking legitimate market competition.
The ruling nonetheless sets a strong precedent for future trade dress infringement claims and calls upon businesses to exercise caution when adopting new branding elements—particularly when entering a space dominated by a well-established player. It also reinforces the Indian judiciary’s willingness to protect visual cues that build consumer trust over time, even if they are not conventionally trademarked.
Conclusion: Why Visual Identity is Sacred?
The Calcutta High Court’s ruling in Exide v. Amara Raja sends a clear message to the Indian industry: deceptive imitation will not be tolerated, even if it is subtle or cloaked in innovation. Trade dress matters, and not just for legal reasons. It matters because in a country as diverse and complex as India, consumers rely on visual familiarity to make choices.
By granting Exide legal protection over its signature colour and design elements, the Court has not only upheld the law, it has safeguarded the essence of honest branding and consumer trust. The judgment reminds us that goodwill, once earned, must not be allowed to be eroded through calculated mimicry. The Lakshmanrekha has been drawn. And for Indian IP law, that line couldn’t be clearer.
[1] ITC Limited v Britannia Industries Ltd, 2023 SCC OnLine Mad 6972
Authored by: Mr. Danny Scariya. He is a final Year BBA LLB Srudent Studying at Symbosis Law School, Pune.
Leave a Reply