Trademark Dispute Over “Pride”: Pernod Ricard India v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra

Background

In 2023, a trademark dispute¹ arose between Pernod Ricard India Private Limited, a well-known liquor manufacturer, and Karanveer Singh Chhabra, a competing party. Pernod Ricard is known for its popular whisky brands like BLENDERS PRIDE and IMPERIAL BLUE, and it also markets SEAGRAM’S as its flagship brand. These trademarks are not only registered in India but are also recognized internationally.

The company accused the Respondent of selling whisky under the name LONDON PRIDE, claiming that the label, packaging, and even the bottles bore a striking resemblance to its own products. They specifically pointed out that “LONDON PRIDE” sounded a lot like “BLENDERS PRIDE” and that the design and color scheme of the label were similar to that of “IMPERIAL BLUE.” Additionally, they alleged that the Respondent had used bottles that were embossed with their SEAGRAM’S mark.

Pernod Ricard filed a civil suit and sought an interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) to halt the sale of “LONDON PRIDE” whisky immediately. However, the Commercial Court turned down their request, a decision that was later upheld by the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Frustrated with the outcome, the company took their case to the Supreme Court of India.

Issue

Whether the appellants are entitled to an interim injunction restraining the respondent from using the impugned trademark, get-up, and trade dress including the packaging of ‘LONDON PRIDE’ on the ground that such use amounts to infringement and/or imitation of the appellants’ registered trademarks, namely ‘BLENDERS PRIDE’, ‘IMPERIAL BLUE’, and ‘SEAGRAM’S’.

Arguments From Pernod Ricard (Appellant)

The Appellant argued that the Respondent’s use of “LONDON PRIDE” was a deliberate attempt to mislead consumers by mimicking the appearance and feel of their products. They asserted that there was a significant chance of confusion, particularly due to the shared term “PRIDE,” the similar designs of the bottles, and packaging features such as color and layout. Additionally, they accused the Respondent of using bottles that bore their embossed SEAGRAM’S brand, labelling it as an act of counterfeiting.

They further relied on precedents like Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satyadeo Gupta² and Cadila Healthcare v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals,³ arguing that even a partial imitation can confuse an average consumer who doesn’t remember details perfectly. Pernod Ricard further brought up ideas like “initial interest confusion” (where consumers might be attracted to a product because of similar branding) and “injurious association” (where one product is mistakenly linked to the reputation of another).

Arguments from Respondent

The Respondent pushed back against these claims, arguing that the trademarks in question were completely distinct. They highlighted that the terms “BLENDERS” and “LONDON” create entirely different identities for the brands. They also pointed out that using common colours like blue and gold isn’t out of the ordinary in the liquor industry, and that these design choices don’t equate to copying. The Respondent insisted there was no intent to mislead and that no consumer would be confused by the similarities.

They also emphasized that they were the proprietors of the trademark “LONDON PRIDE”, registered with the Madhya Pradesh Excise Department, and had a pending application before the Trademark Registry. According to them, the Commercial Court and High Court had rightly refused to grant an injunction since Pernod Ricard failed to establish irreparable harm or balance of convenience.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

The Supreme Court carefully examined the trademarks and rejected Pernod Ricard’s appeal for the following reasons:

Whole Mark vs. Dissection – The Anti-Dissection Rule – The Court emphasized that trademarks should be evaluated in their entirety rather than being broken down into separate components. Pernod Ricard attempted to argue that the common element “PRIDE” was the most significant, but the Court found this reasoning to be legally flawed. Isolating a single shared word while disregarding the overall impression goes against the anti-dissection rule.

Dominant Feature Test – While courts sometimes identify the dominant part of a mark, the Supreme Court clarified that this test cannot override the overall similarity test. In this case, the dominant parts “BLENDERS” and “LONDON” created distinct commercial impressions, outweighing the shared suffix “PRIDE.”

No Monopoly Over Common Terms – The Court pointed out that the term “PRIDE” is a widely used positive term in the liquor industry, meaning it can’t be owned by just one company. Similar to how the word “COLA” was deemed descriptive in Coca-Cola v. Pepsi-Cola, “PRIDE” was also seen as too generic to grant exclusive rights to any single business.

No Evidence of Confusion – A significant flaw in Pernod Ricard’s argument was the absence of solid evidence. They didn’t provide invoices, sales data to demonstrate any impact, or consumer surveys to show confusion. Plus, they didn’t call any witnesses to support their claims. The Court pointed out that simply claiming a reputation isn’t sufficient when trying to secure an interim injunction.

Post-Sale Confusion Argument Rejected – Pernod Ricard claimed that when bottles of “LONDON PRIDE” are showcased at parties or social events, it might lead people to mistakenly think they’re connected to “BLENDERS PRIDE.” However, the Court dismissed this idea, pointing out that confusion after a sale mainly applies to fashion and luxury items where public display is significant (like handbags and shoes). In contrast, liquor is mostly enjoyed in private settings, which makes this argument irrelevant.

SEAGRAM’S Bottles Allegation – The claim that the Respondent reused bottles marked with “SEAGRAM’S” was dismissed as there was no credible evidence to back it up. The Court pointed out that without proof, such allegations can’t justify an injunction.

Mixing of Two Marks Strategy Criticized – The Court took issue with Pernod Ricard for trying to build their case by mixing elements from two distinct brands, BLENDERS PRIDE and IMPERIAL BLUE, against a single competing mark. They deemed this approach a flawed legal strategy, emphasizing that infringement should be evaluated for each trademark on its own.

Interim Relief Standards – The Court reaffirmed the principles for granting interim injunctions in IP disputes:

The Strong prima facie case: The appellant must show that, at first glance, they have a solid case with enough evidence to justify the court’s protection.
Balance of convenience: The appellant must prove that giving them protection will cause less harm or inconvenience than denying it. In other words, it should be fairer to grant the order than to refuse it.
Irreparable harm: The appellant must show that if the court does not give protection, they will suffer harm or loss that cannot be fixed later by money or compensation.

Since Pernod Ricard failed to satisfy these, the denial of an injunction was justified.

What Happens Next?

For now, since the Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal, the case will return to the Commercial Court, which has been directed to complete the trial within four months.

Pernod Ricard still has the chance to present its full case during trial, with proper evidence and witnesses. The final judgment will depend on a full factual assessment. However, given the Supreme Court’s strong observations, the Appellants may face an uphill battle unless they bring new and convincing proof.

Conclusion

The SC’s judgment reinforced key principles: marks must be compared as a whole under the anti-dissection rule, common or descriptive industry terms like “PRIDE” or “COLA” cannot be monopolized, and injunctions require strong, specific proof of confusion or bad faith rather than mere reputation. The Court also clarified that doctrines such as post-sale confusion cannot be applied universally across industries and that interim injunctions will only be granted where a clear case on merits, irreparable harm, and balance of convenience are proven.

Importantly, the decision sends a strong message that evidence outweighs market dominance or brand reputation in trademark disputes. By requiring surveys, testimonials, or concrete proof of misleading copying, the Court ensures that large players cannot use their stature to suppress fair competition. This ruling not only protects smaller businesses but also preserves consumer choice by keeping common words accessible in the marketplace. Ultimately, the case highlights that trademark law is meant to prevent real consumer confusion, not to grant monopolies over widely used or descriptive terms.

This judgment, in our view, strikes the right balance between protecting intellectual property and safeguarding healthy competition. If courts were to allow big brands to monopolize common industry terms without concrete evidence of confusion, it would create barriers for new entrants and stifle innovation. By insisting on strong proof and rejecting overbroad claims, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed that trademark law is not a tool for market domination but a shield against genuine deception.