Prior user’s distinctive trade dress color constitutes a protectable source identifier against a competitor's deceptive imitation.

The Appellant (Amara Raja) and Respondent (Exide) are the primary competitors in the Indian automotive battery market

Exide has used a predominantly red trade dress for its batteries and packaging since 1920 [para. 30, 50] and holds registered trademarks for "EL" (since 1987) and a "shattered O" device (since 1996)

Historically, Amara Raja identified its products with the color green, calling it its "signature colour" and even running social media campaigns denigrating the color red

In 2023, Amara Raja launched "Elito" batteries in India using a red trade dress, a five-letter brand name in white font, and a "shattered O" device, mirroring Exide's packaging

Amara Raja claimed the shift from its overseas blue packaging to red was due to market feedback that blue did not "stand out," though no evidence of such feedback was provided

Exide sued for infringement and passing off. A Single Judge granted an interim injunction against Amara Raja on July 25, 2025

1. Whether the Appellant’s adoption of a red trade dress, the "EL" mark elements, and the "shattered O" device constitutes trademark infringement and passing off of the Respondent's products

2. Whether the "added matters" on the Appellant's packaging (such as the brand name "Elito") were sufficient to distinguish its products from the Respondent's to avoid consumer confusion

3. Whether a single color (red) can be protected as a source identifier in the automotive battery industry

The court applied the "Triple Identity" and "Classical Trinity" tests for passing off, requiring the plaintiff to prove reputation/goodwill, misrepresentation by the defendant, and likelihood of damage (Brihan Karan Sugar Syndicate (P) Ltd v. Yashwantrao Mohite Krushna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana)

It utilized the "eye test" as the primary determinant for visual resemblance and deceptive similarity (Sanjay Soya Private Limited v. Narayani Trading Company)

The court also relied on the principle that a color can function as a source identifier if it acquires secondary meaning through extensive use (Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Production Co., Inc.)

Finally, it addressed the "added matters" doctrine, holding that additional features must be sufficient to distinguish the origin of the product to escape liability for passing off (Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories)

The court found that Exide established long-term, prior use of the red trade dress, creating significant goodwill

Critically, the court noted that Amara Raja’s own previous marketing campaigns—which distinguished its "green" batteries from Exide’s "red" ones—served as an admission that the color red was a source identifier for Exide

Upon visual inspection, the court determined that Amara Raja used the "exact same shade of red" as Exide

The court rejected the "added matters" defense, reasoning that the similarities—both names having five letters, white font on red background, and the use of the "shattered O"—were calculated to sail as close as possible to Exide's brand

Regarding the consumer base, the court held that while some buyers are brand-conscious, many make choices based on shelf displays where side-by-side placement of nearly identical trade dresses would likely cause confusion

Amara Raja's failure to provide a credible explanation for abandoning its signature green/blue for Exide's red suggested a lack of bona fides

The Division Bench affirmed the Single Judge's order, finding that Exide had established a prima facie case, the balance of convenience favored the injunction, and irreparable injury would result otherwise

The appeal (TEMPAPO-IPD/7/2025) was dismissed without costs, maintaining the injunction against Amara Raja