The Supreme Court has held that insofar as products already sold by the Amara Raja Energy Mobility (Appellant) to third-party distributors/franchisees and retailers on a principal-to-principal basis are concerned, and which are therefore no longer within the custody or control of the Appellant, the temporary injunction cannot operate to restrain the onward sale of such products to end customers.
As far as existing stock with Appellant of 20,789 units is concerned, the Apex Court directed that the Appellant may market this stock in any other package which is not red in colour or which is not similar to the packaging of the Respondent’s product. As far as empty cartons of 1,44,547 units is concerned, the Court directed that the 1,44,547 empty cartons carrying the subject trade dress be destroyed and not utilised. The temporary injunction in respect of these empty cartons shall continue.
As regards products with distributors/franchisees and retailers, the Court modified the temporary injunction to permit the Appellant’s products packaged in red coloured cartons to be sold by third-party franchisees, distributors, and retailers to customers.
A Two-Judge Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan noted that the last date of manufacture of the Subject Product was March 29, 2026, and there had been no production after the impugned order dated Apr 02, 2026. The last invoice issued by the Appellant for the Subject Product was dated March 31, 2026, and the last dispatch to distributors/franchisees was on March 31, 2026. The serial number of the last manufactured unit was recorded as CFE4213A325967, with each unit carrying a unique 14-digit serial number and the month and year of manufacture.
The Bench observed that the unsold products lying with the Appellant’s distributors/franchisees and retailers were no longer in the custody or control of the Appellant, having been sold on a principal-to-principal basis.
With respect to the 20,789 units in the Appellant’s possession, the Bench noted the Appellant’s submission that since the subject trade dress was pasted on the product itself and the outer shell of the battery was red coloured, it was not feasible or viable to change the trade dress or colour on the existing stock. The Bench, however, held that the existing stock could be marketed in any other package which is not red in colour or which is not similar to the packaging of the Respondent’s product.
Briefly, Amara Raja Energy Mobility Ltd. (Appellant) was manufacturing and selling batteries under the brand name “ELITO”, featuring a red trade dress on both the battery itself and its carton packaging (Subject Product). The Appellant sold the Subject Product to third-party distributors/franchisees on a principal-to-principal outright sale basis, who in turn sold to retailers on the same basis.
The Calcutta High Court passed a temporary injunction against the Appellant, which was affirmed by the Division Bench on the same date. The Appellant challenged this order before the Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition, which was converted into a Civil Appeal upon grant of leave.
