Factual Background and Procedural History
The dispute arose when Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd., the manufacturer of popular whisky brands Blenders Pride, Imperial Blue, and Seagram’s, alleged that Karanveer Singh Chhabra, proprietor of London Pride Whisky, had adopted a deceptively similar trademark, trade dress, and packaging. The appellants claimed that London Pride was phonetically and visually similar to Blenders Pride and that its colour scheme and label design mimicked Imperial Blue.
The appellants filed Civil Suit No. 3 of 2020 before the Commercial Court, Indore, seeking a permanent injunction against trademark infringement, passing off, and unfair competition, along with damages and delivery-up of infringing goods. An interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC was also sought.
On 26 November 2020, the Commercial Court dismissed the injunction application, holding that there was no deceptive similarity. The Madhya Pradesh High Court (Indore Bench) upheld this order in Misc. Appeal No. 232 of 2021 on 3 November 2023, prompting the appellants to approach the Supreme Court by way of Civil Appeal No. 10638 of 2025.
Identification of Legal Issues
The Supreme Court identified the following central issue:
Whether the appellants were entitled to an interim injunction restraining the respondent from using the mark “London Pride,” on the ground that it amounted to infringement and/or passing off of the appellants’ registered trademarks “Blenders Pride,” “Imperial Blue,” and “Seagram’s”.
This issue required judicial evaluation of deceptive similarity, dominant features, anti-dissection, and the average consumer test under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants (Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd.)
- The respondent’s adoption of London Pride was dishonest and intended to exploit the goodwill of Blenders Pride and Imperial Blue, violating Sections 28 and 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
- Both marks are used for identical goods—Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL)—and marketed through the same trade channels.
- The term “Pride”, forming the distinctive and dominant part of Blenders Pride, was not generic or descriptive in relation to whisky.
- Courts below erred by dissecting the mark into “Blenders” and “Pride” and comparing only partial elements, contrary to the anti-dissection rule.
- Reliance was placed on Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satyadeo Gupta, Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., and T.V. Venugopal v. Ushodaya Enterprises to emphasize overall similarity and consumer confusion.
- The use of Seagram’s embossed bottles by the respondent constituted infringement of the appellants’ registered word mark.
- The appellants also invoked the doctrines of injurious association and initial interest confusion, arguing that even temporary consumer association or attraction toward the infringing mark amounts to actionable misappropriation of goodwill.
Respondent (Karanveer Singh Chhabra)
- The respondent claimed proprietorship of London Pride, duly registered with the Madhya Pradesh Excise Department.
- There was no phonetic, visual, or structural similarity with the appellants’ marks. The colour schemes and label designs were distinct.
- The goods were sold in sealed packaging, reducing the likelihood of confusion.
- The appellants failed to establish irreparable harm or balance of convenience, prerequisites for interim relief.
- Consumers of IMFL were argued to be discerning and unlikely to confuse the products.
Court’s Analysis and Reasoning
Justice R. Mahadevan, delivering the opinion of the Court, conducted a meticulous dissection of trademark jurisprudence, clarifying multiple interpretative doctrines.
1. Statutory Framework
The Court extensively examined Sections 2(h), 9, 11, 17, 27–29, and 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, emphasizing that:
- The guiding test is likelihood of confusion, not proof of actual deception.
- Protection extends to visual, phonetic, and structural similarity.
- Section 29(3) presumes confusion where identical or nearly identical marks are used for identical goods.
2. Precedential Foundations
Drawing from Amritdhara Pharmacy, Parle Products v. J.P. & Co., Corn Products Refining Co., and Cadila Healthcare, the Court reaffirmed that:
- Marks must be compared as a whole (anti-dissection rule).
- The average consumer test focuses on imperfect recollection.
- Trademarks perform an essential economic function in distinguishing goods, and confusion undermines both competition and consumer welfare.
3. Anti-Dissection and Dominant Feature Doctrines
The Court harmonized the two doctrines, clarifying that:
- The anti-dissection rule prevents piecemeal analysis of composite marks.
- The dominant feature test identifies the essential component likely to influence consumer perception.
- Courts must examine the overall commercial impression rather than isolated words.
In this context, “PRIDE” formed a dominant and distinctive component of the appellants’ mark, while “LONDON PRIDE” evoked the same recall pattern as “BLENDERS PRIDE,” leading to a likelihood of association.
4. Average Consumer Test
The Court held that:
“The relevant standard is that of an average consumer possessing imperfect recollection—not a specialist, connoisseur, or linguistically trained individual.”
Socio-economic status or literacy of consumers cannot negate the possibility of confusion. Even discerning customers may be initially misled by structural similarity.
5. Trade Dress and Colour Scheme
The Court observed visual overlap between London Pride and Imperial Blue packaging, holding that trade dress similarity constitutes independent grounds of infringement.
6. Injurious Association and Initial Interest Confusion
By adopting London Pride, the respondent capitalized on the appellants’ established brand equity, causing injurious association. Even if consumers later discerned the difference, initial attraction to a deceptively similar mark constitutes actionable infringement.
7. Comparative Jurisprudence
Referring to the UK doctrine of post-sale confusion, the Court noted that modern trademark law protects against downstream misperception where consumers or onlookers may attribute products to the wrong source.
Final Conclusion and Holding
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court and Commercial Court orders, and granted an interim injunction restraining the respondent from using the mark London Pride or any deceptively similar label or trade dress.
The Court held that:
- The appellants established a prima facie case of infringement and passing off.
- The balance of convenience favoured the protection of established marks.
- Irreparable harm would ensue if the appellants’ goodwill continued to be diluted.
The judgment reiterates that brand reputation, consumer trust, and fair competition form the bedrock of Indian trademark jurisprudence.
FAQs:
1. What does “deceptively similar” mean in trademark law?
A mark is deceptively similar when it closely resembles another mark, creating a likelihood of confusion among consumers about the product’s source or origin.
2. What is the anti-dissection rule in trademark comparison?
The anti-dissection rule requires courts to compare marks as a whole rather than dissecting them into parts, since consumers perceive trademarks in their entirety.
3. What is the dominant feature test?
This test identifies the distinctive or memorable part of a composite mark that shapes consumer perception. If that feature is copied, infringement may occur even without identical replication.
4. How does the average consumer test apply in trademark disputes?
Courts evaluate similarity from the viewpoint of an average consumer with imperfect recollection—not a meticulous expert—focusing on practical likelihood of confusion.
5. Can colour and packaging similarity lead to trademark infringement?
Yes. Trade dress—including colour, shape, and packaging—can independently amount to infringement if it creates a deceptive association with another brand’s product.
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.