Balancing equity and exclusivity: Supreme Court reinforces trade dress protection

Introduction

The judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 27 May 2026, in Amara Raja Energy and Mobility Limited v. Exide Industries Limited[1] stands as a defining precedent in the field of trade dress protection. This dispute arose in the Calcutta High Court, where the Single Judge as well as the Division Bench granted Exide an interim injunction, holding that its long-standing use of a distinctive combination of colours and design elements had acquired secondary meaning and was protectable as trade dress. The Supreme Court then substantially upheld that order, clarifying that trade dress rights are not confined to monopolizing a single colour but extend to the overall commercial impression created by a combination of distinctive features, thereby affirming Exide’s entitlement to protection. By affirming Exide’s long-standing association with a predominantly red trade dress, the Division Bench reinforced the principle that consumer perception and brand identity are integral to intellectual property protection, particularly in industries where visual cues strongly influence market choices.

This ruling is especially significant in today’s world where packaging and artistic elements serve as powerful indicators of source and quality. The Calcutta High Court Division Bench had acknowledged that Exide’s red trade dress had acquired secondary meaning, making it synonymous with its products in the marketplace. By restraining Amara Raja from using a similar red trade dress for its ELITO battery range, the Supreme Court has in effect, upheld a decision that struck a careful balance between consumer protection against deceptive similarity and the preservation of fair competition. In doing so, the Supreme Court has also aligned Indian jurisprudence with global trends that safeguard non-traditional marks such as colours and packaging, thereby strengthening the framework of intellectual property law and sending a clear signal that imitation of distinctive trade dress will not be tolerated.

Background and facts of the case

The dispute between Amara Raja, the Appellant, and Exide Industries, the Respondent, arose when Amara Raja launched its ‘ELITO’ range of automotive batteries, packaged in a predominantly red trade dress. The Respondent, a market leader in the automotive battery industry, alleged that the ELITO packaging was deceptively similar to its own long-established trade dress, which had become a hallmark of its brand identity. The Appellant argued that the red colour scheme, when combined with its distinctive branding elements such as the ‘EL’ lettering and shattered ‘O’ device, had acquired secondary meaning in the marketplace, making it strongly associated with Exide’s products. This association, according to the Respondent, was the result of decades of consistent use and consumer recognition, thereby entitling it to protection under trade dress law.

Initially, Exide Industries filed a suit for infringement and passing off, before the Intellectual Property Rights Division of the Calcutta High Court[2]. On 24 July 2025, the High Court granted an interim injunction restraining Amara Raja from dealing in products with predominantly red trade dress. The decision of the Single Judge emphasized that Exide had established substantial goodwill and reputation in the automotive battery market, and that the red colour scheme had become synonymous with Exide batteries. The injunction was premised on the finding that Amara Raja’s adoption of a similar trade dress was likely to cause confusion among consumers, thereby infringing upon Exide’s rights and diluting its brand identity. This interim order laid the foundation for the subsequent appeals and the eventual adjudication by the Supreme Court.

Contentions of the parties 

Amara Raja: Amara Raja’s primary contention was that the injunction granted by the Calcutta High Court effectively bestowed upon Exide Industries an impermissible monopoly over the colour red. According to Amara Raja, such a monopoly was inconsistent with established principles of trademark and trade dress law, which do not allow exclusive rights over a single colour unless it has acquired extraordinary distinctiveness. Amara Raja argued that the order went beyond the pleadings and imposed restrictions that were anti-competitive in nature, thereby stifling innovation and fair market practices. Amara Raja maintained that trade dress protection should not extend to a single colour in isolation, as this would unfairly limit competitors from using common elements and hinder healthy competition in the automotive battery industry.

Exide Industries: On the other hand, Exide asserted that its trade dress was distinctive not merely because of the use of red but due to the combination of multiple elements with the predominant red colour, the stylized ‘EL’ lettering, and the shattered ‘O’ device. Exide Industries emphasized that these features, when taken together, created a unique and recognizable commercial impression that had become strongly associated with its brand over decades of consistent use. Exide Industries argued that Amara Raja’ ELITO packaging was deceptively similar to their established trade dress, and such imitation was bound to cause confusion among consumers. Exide Industries maintained that the goodwill and reputation it had built in the marketplace entitled it to protection against competitors adopting deceptively similar branding strategies.

Appeal before the Division Bench and journey to the Supreme Court

After the interim injunction was granted by Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur on 24 July 2025, Amara Raja promptly challenged the order before a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court. 

The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court upheld the injunction restraining Amara Raja from using a red trade dress for its batteries. The Division Bench noted that Exide had long established red as a distinctive identifier in the battery market, while Amara Raja was traditionally associated with green. By suddenly adopting red packaging with similar lettering and devices, Amara Raja created a likelihood of consumer confusion and passing off. The Bench emphasized that although a single colour cannot ordinarily be monopolized, the cumulative effect of Exide’s red trade dress combined with its marks had acquired distinctiveness deserving protection, and Amara Raja’s conduct lacked justification. The Division Bench took a broader view of the dispute. On 2 April 2026[3], Justices Debangsu Basak and Md. Shabbar Rashidi upheld the injunction, emphasizing that the case was not about monopolizing red in isolation but about the overall commercial impression created by the cumulative adoption of trade dress elements. The Court found that the combination of features used by Amara Raja was likely to cause confusion among consumers, thereby justifying the continuation of the restraint.

Aggrieved by the order of the Division Bench, Amara Raja escalated the matter to the Supreme Court of India by filing a Special Leave Petition[4]. Amara Raja sought relief against the injunction, contending that the orders of the High Court unduly restricted its ability to compete and were disproportionate in scope. The Petition before the Supreme Court thus became the final stage in the dispute’s judicial journey, raising critical questions about the balance between protecting established goodwill and ensuring fair competition.

The Supreme Court, while entertaining the Petition, was tasked with examining whether the injunction granted by the High Court was justified in law and equity. The Bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan approached the matter with caution, recognizing the need to protect Exide’s long-standing goodwill while also ensuring that Amara Raja was not unfairly prejudiced in disposing of its existing stock. This careful balancing of interests set the stage for the Apex Court’s authoritative pronouncement, which would ultimately shape the contours of trade dress protection in India and provide clarity on how courts should approach disputes involving non-traditional marks such as colours and packaging.

Supreme Court’s findings: 

Before the Supreme Court the Appellant’s were asked to file affidavit of the inventory existing with them and in distributors and retailers’ possession. The Supreme Court, after scrutinizing the affidavit, divided the disputed goods into two distinct categories.

Inventory in Amara Raja’s Possession: 

The Court observed that approximately 20,789 battery units and 1,44,547 empty cartons bearing the contested red trade dress remained with the appellant. It categorically rejected Amara Raja’s plea to market these products in their existing form. The Court held that the batteries could only be sold if repackaged in a manner that avoided the impugned red colour scheme and did not resemble Exide’s packaging. With respect to the empty cartons, the Court adopted a stricter stance, noting that the cartons themselves embodied the disputed trade dress. Consequently, it directed that these cartons be destroyed and not circulated in the market.

Inventory with Distributors and Retailers: 

The Court adopted a different approach for goods already sold into the distribution chain. It acknowledged that these stocks had been sold prior to the injunction, were no longer under Amara Raja’s custody or control, and had been transacted on a principal-to-principal basis with distributors and franchisees. Furthermore, manufacturing had ceased before the operative injunction was issued. In these circumstances, the Court found it inequitable to restrain distributors and retailers from selling inventory that had already entered the market. Accordingly, it modified the injunction to permit the sale of such products by distributors, franchisees, and retailers.

Supreme Court’s directions on appeal 

The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal and modified the interim injunction issued by the Calcutta High Court. The Court’s operative directions were carefully tailored to balance enforcement of trade dress rights with commercial realities.

• Products with distributors, franchisees, and retailers: The Court permitted continued sale of products already lying in the distribution chain, recognizing that these stocks had been sold prior to the injunction, were outside the Appellant’s control, and involved principal-to-principal transactions.
• Empty cartons in appellant’s possession: The Court categorically prohibited the use of the 1,44,547 empty cartons bearing disputed trade dress, directing that they be destroyed since they themselves embodied the impugned design.
• Products in appellant’s custody: The Court allowed marketing of the 20,789 battery units still with Amara Raja only if repackaged in a manner that avoided the red colour scheme and did not resemble Exide’s packaging.

Importantly, the Supreme Court clarified that this modification was confined solely to the interim injunction stage and would not prejudice the merits of the underlying trademark and trade dress suit. It expressly stated that its observations were limited to interlocutory proceedings and should not influence the final adjudication of the dispute.

Conclusion

The litigation between Amara Raja Energy and Mobility Limited and Exide Industries Limited illustrates two distinct judicial approaches at different stages.

The Calcutta High Court Division Bench upheld the interim injunction against Amara Raja, emphasizing that Exide’s long-standing use of a predominantly red trade dress, combined with distinctive elements like the ‘EL’ mark and shattered ‘O’ device, had acquired secondary meaning. The Court clarified that the dispute was not about monopolizing red in isolation but about the overall commercial impression created by Exide’s trade dress. Amara Raja’s sudden adoption of red packaging was deemed likely to cause consumer confusion and passing off, thereby justifying continuation of the restraint.

On the other hand, the Supreme Court partly allowed Amara Raja’s appeal, modifying the scope of the injunction to balance trade dress protection with commercial fairness. It directed that products already in the distribution chain could continue to be sold, recognizing they were outside Amara Raja’s control. However, the 1,44,547 empty cartons bearing the disputed trade dress were ordered to be destroyed, and the 20,789 battery units in Amara Raja’s possession could only be marketed if repackaged without the impugned red scheme. Crucially, the Court clarified that these directions were confined to the interlocutory stage and would not prejudice the merits of the underlying suit.

In essence, the Division Bench of the High Court focused on protecting Exide’s goodwill and preventing consumer confusion, while the Supreme Court refined the injunction to ensure equitable treatment of existing market realities without compromising the integrity of trade dress law. This dual approach underscores the balance between consumer protection and commercial fairness in Indian jurisprudence.

[The author is an Associate in IPR practice at Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan Attorneys]

[1] MANU/SCOR/37980/2026; Amara Raja Energy Mobility Ltd. v. Exide Industries Ltd. (27 May 2026 - SC Order)

[2] MANU/WB/1802/2025; Exide Industries Limited v. Amara Raja Energy and Mobility Limited (24 July 2025 – CAL HC)

[3] MANU/WB/0725/2026; Amara Raja Energy and Mobility Limited v. Exide Industries Limited (2 April 2026 - CALHC)

[4] MANU/SCOR/37979/2026; Amara Raja Energy Mobility Ltd. v. Exide Industries Ltd. (25 May 2026 - SC Order)