Exide Industries Limited v Amara Raja Energy and Mobility Limited
In a recent decision, the Calcutta High Court dealt with the issue of protectability of colour combinations in the context of trade dress in Exide Industries Ltd. v. Amara Raja Energy and Mobility Ltd.
Exide, a long-established player in the battery industry, sought to restrain Amara from using a red and white packaging scheme for its recently rebranded batteries, alleging deceptive similarity with Exide’s longstanding trade dress. Amara argued that the red and white colour scheme was not inherently distinctive and had not acquired secondary meaning – capable of functioning as a source identifier for Exide. It also contended that red was a common industry colour and that no monopoly should be granted over such basic visual elements.
➢ Court recognized that colour combinations alone cannot be exclusively owned unless they have attained distinctiveness and secondary meaning.
➢ While acknowledging that red and white are widely used in the battery sector, the Court found merit in Exide’s claim on the basis of the overall trade dress – the specific colour combination and overall artistic elements, including the stylized representation of the rival trademarks.
➢ The court emphasized on the long-standing use and consumer association with Exide’s red and white packaging.
➢ Granting an interim injunction, the Court restrained Amara from using the impugned packaging.
This judgment upheld settled legal principle – a colour or colour combination may be protectable only if it has acquired secondary meaning, but such protection does not equate to absolute monopoly. The ruling thus strikes a balance between protecting goodwill and preventing anti-competitive claims over generic visual elements.