Factual Background and Procedural History
Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd., a leading manufacturer of alcoholic beverages, markets whisky under the well-known trademarks ‘BLENDERS PRIDE’, ‘IMPERIAL BLUE’, and the house mark ‘SEAGRAM’S’. The company claimed extensive use and registration of these marks since the 1990s, with turnover exceeding several thousand crores annually.
In 2019, the appellants discovered that the respondent, Karanveer Singh Chhabra, was selling whisky under the mark ‘LONDON PRIDE’, using packaging and bottle designs allegedly similar to those of Blenders Pride and Imperial Blue, and even using embossed Seagram’s bottles.
The appellants filed a commercial suit before the Indore Commercial Court seeking a permanent injunction against infringement and passing off, along with damages and destruction of infringing goods. The interim injunction sought under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC was rejected on 26 November 2020, and the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Indore Bench) upheld that rejection on 3 November 2023. Pernod Ricard appealed before the Supreme Court, which delivered this judgment on 14 August 2025.
Identification of Legal Issues
The Supreme Court addressed the following principal question:
Whether the appellants were entitled to an interim injunction restraining the respondent from using the mark, label, packaging, and trade dress of ‘LONDON PRIDE’, alleged to be deceptively similar to the appellants’ registered trademarks ‘BLENDERS PRIDE’, ‘IMPERIAL BLUE’, and ‘SEAGRAM’S’.
Sub-issues considered:
- What constitutes deceptive similarity under the Trade Marks Act, 1999?
- Whether the doctrine of anti-dissection and the dominant feature test should be applied jointly or separately.
- How the average consumer test and imperfect recollection doctrine apply to composite marks in the liquor industry.
- What are the criteria for grant of interim injunctions in trademark infringement suits?
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants (Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd.)
- Claimed statutory rights under Sections 28 and 29 of the Trade Marks Act.
- Asserted that ‘LONDON PRIDE’ is phonetically, visually, and structurally similar to ‘BLENDERS PRIDE’ and uses the colour scheme and trade dress of ‘IMPERIAL BLUE’.
- Argued that the dominant element “PRIDE” forms the core of the goodwill associated with Blenders Pride; its imitation constitutes deliberate misappropriation and passing off.
- Cited Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satyadeo Gupta, Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., and Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories, to emphasize the anti-dissection rule and likelihood of confusion test.
- Contended that dishonest adoption negates the need for proof of actual confusion, and interim relief must follow to prevent erosion of brand equity.
- Claimed misuse of ‘SEAGRAM’S’ embossed bottles, constituting direct infringement.
- Emphasized initial interest confusion and injurious association, arguing that consumer misperception, even if momentary, is actionable.
Respondent (Karanveer Singh Chhabra)
- Asserted ownership and exclusive use of the mark ‘LONDON PRIDE’, duly registered with the Madhya Pradesh Excise Department.
- Claimed the marks were entirely dissimilar—different typography, colour, and packaging—and that consumers of whisky are discerning and literate.
- Argued that the appellants failed to prove irreparable harm or balance of convenience, essential for interim relief.
- Maintained that the Commercial Court had properly applied the tests for deceptive similarity and consumer confusion, and no interference was warranted.
Court’s Analysis and Reasoning
A. Statutory and Doctrinal Framework
The Court extensively reviewed the Trade Marks Act, 1999, particularly Sections 2(h), 9, 11, 17, 27, 28, 29, and 135, reaffirming that the likelihood of confusion—not actual deception—is the touchstone of infringement.
B. Anti-Dissection Rule vs. Dominant Feature Test
The Court clarified that while the anti-dissection rule mandates viewing the mark as a whole, the dominant feature test aids in identifying the component that leaves a lasting impression on consumers. Courts must balance both doctrines, depending on the factual context.
C. The Average Consumer and Imperfect Recollection
Reaffirming Cadila Health Care, the Court held that an average consumer of whisky—though literate—still makes imperfect recollections, especially when brands share similar structures (e.g., Blenders Pride vs. London Pride). Hence, overall similarity, not side-by-side comparison, governs the analysis.
D. Comparative Jurisprudence
The Court examined the UK “post-sale confusion doctrine”, noting that even if the buyer is aware of the distinction at purchase, use of similar packaging or naming can mislead others post-sale, thereby harming the senior brand’s reputation.
E. Tests for Interim Injunction
Applying the classic triad—prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm—the Court held:
- The appellants established a strong prima facie case given their longstanding use and market reputation.
- The balance of convenience favoured the appellants, as continued sale under ‘LONDON PRIDE’ risked brand dilution.
- The harm was irreparable, as reputation and goodwill once lost cannot be monetarily compensated.
F. Policy Considerations
The Court emphasized protecting commercial integrity and consumer trust, observing that dishonest imitation erodes both market confidence and fair competition.
Final Conclusion and Holding
The Supreme Court set aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment and the Commercial Court’s order, granting interim injunction in favour of Pernod Ricard.
The Court directed the respondent to cease manufacturing, selling, or advertising any alcoholic beverage under the mark or label ‘LONDON PRIDE’, or any mark deceptively similar to ‘BLENDERS PRIDE’, ‘IMPERIAL BLUE’, or ‘SEAGRAM’S’.
Key Principle Laid Down:
In assessing trademark infringement, courts must apply the anti-dissection rule, dominant feature test, and average consumer standard in harmony. Even partial imitation that evokes association with a reputed mark warrants injunctive relief, particularly at the interim stage, to prevent dilution of goodwill and consumer deception.
FAQs:
1. Can a proprietorship firm file or defend a lawsuit in India?
A proprietorship firm cannot sue independently since it is not a separate legal entity. However, the proprietor can file or defend a case either in their own name or using the firm’s trade name under Order XXX Rule 10 CPC.
2. What does Order XXX Rule 10 of the CPC mean?
Order XXX Rule 10 is an enabling provision that allows a person conducting business under a trade name to be sued in that business name. It does not mandate that suits must be filed in the trade name; the proprietor remains the real party.
3. Is there any legal difference between a proprietorship and a partnership firm?
Yes. A partnership is governed by the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, and may sue or be sued in the firm name. A proprietorship, however, is owned entirely by one person and has no legal existence separate from its proprietor.
4. What happens if a proprietor is not named in a suit against the firm?
If the proprietor’s identity is clear and the cause of action relates to the proprietorship business, the court may treat the proceedings as valid. Technical errors in naming can be corrected without defeating the suit.
5. Why did the Supreme Court intervene in the Dogiparthi Venkata Satish case?
The Supreme Court found that the High Court had misapplied Order XXX Rule 10 CPC. It reaffirmed that suing a proprietor directly, instead of the firm’s trade name, is legally sufficient and causes no procedural defect.
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.