Background
In 2023, a trademark dispute arose between Pernod Ricard India Private Limited, a leading liquor manufacturer, and Karanveer Singh Chhabra, a competing party, over the use of the mark LONDON PRIDE. 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 alleged that the Respondent’s product LONDON PRIDE infringed its registered trademarks by using similar naming, color scheme, packaging, and even embossed bottles bearing SEAGRAM’S marks, and filed a suit for infringement, seeking interim injunction to halt the sale of “LONDON PRIDE” whisky immediately. Both the Commercial Court (Indore) and the Madhya Pradesh High Court rejected the plea, prompting an appeal to the Supreme Court of India1 [1].
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’.
Pernod Ricard’s Arguments
Pernod Ricard 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, the appellant accused the Respondent of using bottles that bore their embossed SEAGRAM’S brand, labelling it as an act of counterfeiting.
Pernod Ricard relied on earlier precedents like Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satyadeo Gupta [2]2 and Cadila Healthcare v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals [3],3 arguing that even partial imitation could confuse an average consumer with imperfect recollection. They also invoked doctrines like “initial interest confusion” and “injurious association,” contending that consumers might associate LONDON PRIDE with Pernod Ricard’s established brands.
Respondent’s Arguments
The Respondent argued that LONDON PRIDE was distinct in identity, sound, and visual impression, stressing that “BLENDERS” and “LONDON” created completely different brand associations. They pointed out that using common colors such as blue or gold is industry-standard and not proof of 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 dismissed Pernod Ricard’s appeal, reaffirming that trademark comparisons must follow the anti-dissection rule and be viewed as a whole, not by isolating common words like PRIDE
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 word “PRIDE” was deemed laudatory and descriptive in the context of the liquor trade, similar to “COLA” in Coca-Cola v. Pepsi-Cola [4]4. Hence, no entity can claim exclusivity over such a term without showing secondary distinctiveness—which Pernod Ricard failed to prove.
No Evidence of Confusion
The Court observed that no consumer surveys, affidavits, or sales evidence were produced to substantiate confusion or deception. The Court pointed 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 that confusion after a sale mainly applies to fashion and luxury goods where public display is significant (like handbags and shoes). In contrast, liquor is mostly enjoyed in private settings, which makes this argument pretty 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 that without proof, such allegations can’t justify an injunction.
Mixing of Two Marks Strategy Criticized
The Court criticized Pernod Ricard’s attempt to combine features from two distinct marks—BLENDERS PRIDE and IMPERIAL BLUE—to build a single infringement claim. It reiterated that each mark must be compared independently against the allegedly infringing mark.
Interim Relief Standards
To grant an interim injunction under Section 135 of the Trade Marks Act, the plaintiff must prove:
- a strong prima facie case,
- a balance of convenience in their favor, and
- irreparable harm not compensable by damages.
Since none of these were established, denial of injunction was justified
What Happens Next?
Now that 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.
Our Analysis and Conclusion
The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ rulings in favor of the Respondent, finding no prima facie evidence of trademark infringement or consumer confusion. The judgment reinforced key principles: (i) marks must be compared as a whole under the anti-dissection rule, (ii) common or descriptive industry terms like “PRIDE” or “COLA” cannot be monopolized,(iii) injunctions require strong, specific proof of confusion or bad faith rather than mere reputation, and (iv) post-sale confusion cannot be applied universally across industries.
Importantly, this decision sends a strong message: 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. 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 ruling not only protects smaller businesses but also preserves consumer choice by keeping common words accessible in the marketplace. 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. This judgment, in our view, strikes the right balance between protecting intellectual property and safeguarding healthy competition.