Factual Background and Procedural History
Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd., a prominent manufacturer and distributor of alcoholic beverages, markets its products under renowned trademarks such as ‘Blenders Pride’, ‘Imperial Blue’, and ‘Seagram’s’, all duly registered under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The predecessor-in-title, Seagram Company Limited, obtained registration of ‘SEAGRAM’S’ in 1945, followed by ‘BLENDERS PRIDE’ in 1994 and ‘IMPERIAL BLUE’ in 2016. These brands enjoy substantial goodwill and multi-crore annual turnovers.
In May 2019, the appellants discovered that Karanveer Singh Chhabra, the respondent, was marketing whisky under the mark ‘London Pride’, using packaging alleged to be deceptively similar to that of ‘Blenders Pride’ and ‘Imperial Blue’. Pernod Ricard claimed that the respondent had not only copied its colour combination and trade dress but also used bottles embossed with the ‘Seagram’s’ mark.
Aggrieved, the appellants filed Civil Suit No. 3 of 2020 before the Commercial Court seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining the respondent from trademark infringement, passing off, and unfair competition, along with damages and delivery-up. The appellants also filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC for interim relief.
The Commercial Court, by order dated 26 November 2020, dismissed the injunction application, holding that the only common element between the marks was the word ‘Pride’, which was incapable of exclusive appropriation. The Madhya Pradesh High Court, in appeal (Misc. Appeal No. 232 of 2021), affirmed the dismissal on 3 November 2023. Pernod Ricard then approached the Supreme Court, leading to the present judgment dated 14 August 2025.
Identification of Legal Issues
The Supreme Court was called upon to adjudicate the following legal questions:
- Whether the respondent’s use of the mark ‘London Pride’ amounts to infringement of the appellants’ registered trademarks ‘Blenders Pride’, ‘Imperial Blue’, or ‘Seagram’s’.
- Whether the word ‘Pride’, being a common and laudatory expression, can form the basis for an exclusive claim to trademark protection.
- Whether the appellants had established a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm to warrant an interim injunction.
- Whether the courts below erred in applying the principles governing deceptive similarity, particularly the anti-dissection rule and the average consumer test.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants’ Submissions
Pernod Ricard contended that the respondent’s mark ‘London Pride’ was deceptively similar to ‘Blenders Pride’, both phonetically and visually, and that the imitation extended to the label, packaging, and trade dress of ‘Imperial Blue’. They argued:
- The adoption of ‘London Pride’ was dishonest and intended to misappropriate goodwill built over decades.
- The term ‘Pride’ formed the dominant and distinctive feature of their composite mark.
- Courts below violated the anti-dissection rule, which mandates comparison of marks as a whole rather than isolating components.
- Reliance was placed on Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories (AIR 1965 SC 980) and Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satyadeo Gupta (AIR 1963 SC 449) to emphasize overall similarity.
- The appellants further invoked principles such as initial interest confusion and injurious association, citing Baker Hughes Ltd. v. Hiroo Khushalani (2004) 12 SCC 628 and Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2001) 5 SCC 573, arguing that even momentary consumer confusion warranted protection.
They alleged that use of Seagram’s embossed bottles by the respondent further constituted infringement of the appellants’ house mark.
Respondent’s Submissions
The respondent argued that ‘London Pride’ was his independently conceived brand, duly registered with the Excise Department, with no visual, phonetic, or structural similarity to the appellants’ marks. He asserted:
- The word ‘Pride’ is publici juris, extensively used in the liquor trade (e.g., ‘McDowell’s Pride’, ‘Highland Pride’, ‘Royal Pride’).
- Each of the appellants’ trademarks is a composite mark, and no exclusive right exists over common elements like bottle shape or colour.
- Consumers of premium whisky are discerning buyers, reducing the likelihood of confusion.
- The Commercial Court’s decision was a lawful exercise of discretion based on a holistic assessment of both marks.
Court’s Analysis and Reasoning
The Supreme Court undertook a detailed review of Sections 17, 27, and 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and reiterated foundational doctrines governing trademark comparison:
1. Anti-Dissection and Overall Similarity
The Court reaffirmed that composite marks must be compared in their entirety, not dissected into components. The dominant feature may aid analysis but does not alone determine infringement. What matters is the overall commercial impression on the average consumer.
2. Distinctiveness and Common Elements
Citing Cadila Healthcare, the Court held that shared use of common words like ‘Pride’ does not, by itself, constitute infringement unless the term has acquired secondary meaning uniquely identifying the plaintiff’s product. The appellants failed to produce consumer surveys or evidence to show that ‘Pride’ had achieved such distinctiveness. The Court took judicial notice of the widespread use of ‘Pride’ in Class 33 trademarks.
3. Average Consumer Test
Reiterating the test from Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer v. Klijsen Handel BV, the Court observed that the relevant consumer is reasonably well-informed and circumspect but not an expert. Given that premium whisky consumers are generally discerning and brand-aware, the likelihood of confusion was found to be minimal.
4. Prima Facie Case and Balance of Convenience
The Court agreed with the lower courts that the appellants had failed to establish a prima facie case. The shared use of a generic laudatory term did not warrant injunctive relief. The Court emphasized that irreparable harm and public interest must be established cumulatively for interim injunctions in trademark cases.
5. Prior Litigation and Estoppel
The Supreme Court noted that the appellants’ earlier challenge against United Spirits Ltd. for using ‘Royal Challenge American Pride’ was dismissed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court and later by the Supreme Court (SLP No. 17674/2023). Having failed to object to similar uses earlier, the appellants were estopped from asserting exclusivity over ‘Pride’.
Final Conclusion and Holding
The Court held that:
- ‘BLENDERS PRIDE’ and ‘LONDON PRIDE’ are not deceptively similar.
- The word ‘Pride’ is common to the trade and not inherently distinctive.
- The appellants’ attempt to claim monopoly over ‘Pride’ and combine features from multiple marks (‘Blenders Pride’ and ‘Imperial Blue’) was legally untenable.
- The appeal was dismissed, and the Commercial Court directed to proceed with trial on merits within four months, uninfluenced by observations in the interlocutory order.
Doctrinal Takeaways
This judgment reinforces critical principles in Indian trademark jurisprudence:
- Composite marks must be compared as a whole, not dissected.
- Generic or laudatory words cannot be monopolized without proof of acquired distinctiveness.
- Likelihood of confusion, not actual deception, remains the test—but must be judged from the standpoint of the average consumer.
- Prior conduct and estoppel play a decisive role in equitable relief.
- Courts remain reluctant to grant injunctions at the interlocutory stage absent compelling evidence of distinctiveness and confusion.
FAQs:
1. Can a company claim exclusive rights over common words in a trademark?
No. Common or laudatory words like “Pride” cannot be monopolized unless the owner proves that the term has acquired secondary meaning identifying its goods.
2. What is the anti-dissection rule in trademark law?
It requires courts to compare composite trademarks as a whole rather than isolating individual elements. The overall impression on the consumer determines similarity.
3. What is the ‘average consumer test’?
It evaluates whether a typical buyer, with imperfect recollection but reasonable care, would likely be confused by the similarity between two trademarks.
4. Can prior litigation affect future trademark claims?
Yes. If a party has previously failed to challenge similar marks or conceded certain rights, it may be estopped from reasserting exclusivity later.
5. What factors do courts consider before granting an interim injunction in trademark cases?
Courts assess the presence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, risk of irreparable harm, and public interest before issuing interim relief.
Stay informed with insights that matter. Follow us for more updates on key legal developments.
Disclaimer
The content provided here is for general information only; it does not constitute legal advice. Reading them does not create a lawyer-client relationship, and Mahendra Bhavsar & Co. disclaims all liability for actions taken or omitted based on this content. Always obtain advice from qualified counsel for your specific circumstances. © Mahendra Bhavsar & Co.