Trademark Dispute: Officer’s Choice vs Original Choice
The trademark dispute between Allied Blenders and Distillers Pvt. Ltd. (ABD), makers of Officer’s Choice, and John Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. (JDL), makers of Original Choice, is one of India’s most enduring commercial legal battles. Spanning nearly three decades, it highlights the tension between market reputation, consumer perception, and the limits of trademark protection.
Timeline of Key Events
| Year/Date | Event | Outcome & Significance |
| Pre-1990 | Officer’s Choice launches. | Gains strong market presence and reputation, forming the foundation of ABD’s trademark claim. |
| Mid-1990s | Original Choice enters the market. | The alleged similarity in name and abbreviation (OC) sets the stage for conflict. |
| 1995 | ABD opposes Original Choice before Excise authorities. | Marks the formal beginning of the rivalry and opposition proceedings. |
| 2007–2008 | Both companies file rectification petitions against each other’s trademarks. | ABD: Original Choice is deceptively similar. JDL: Officer’s Choice registration was defective. |
| March 8, 2013 | IPAB Decision. | Dismisses both petitions, holding that the marks are not deceptively similar and can coexist. |
| 2013 | Appeals filed in the Madras High Court. | The dispute escalates from IPAB to the High Court. |
| Nov 7, 2025 | Madras High Court ruling. | Reverses IPAB. Finds Original Choice deceptively similar to Officer’s Choice. Orders removal of JDL’s mark. Dismisses JDL’s counter-petition. |
| Nov 17, 2025 | Supreme Court intervention. | JDL challenges the High Court order. SC appoints former Justice L. Nageswara Rao as mediator, prioritizing settlement over immediate adjudication. |
Governing Case Laws (Trademark Jurisprudence)
The Supreme Court and various High Courts have established definitive tests that govern the issues central to the ‘Choice’ dispute: deceptive similarity, consumer confusion, and coexistence.
Key Precedents on Deceptive Similarity and Confusion
- Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2001): Laid down the test for deceptive similarity, stressing factors like phonetic resemblance, the nature of goods, consumer sophistication, and the overall impression created by the marks.
- Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satya Deo Gupta (1963): Established that even mere resemblance likely to confuse an average purchaser with imperfect recollection is sufficient to justify injunction.
- K.R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar v. Sri Ambal & Co. (1970): Reinforced the principle that phonetic similarity alone (e.g., ‘Ambal’ and ‘Andal’) can justify restraint, despite spelling or visual differences.
Precedents on Prior Use, Reputation, and Coexistence
- James Chadwick & Bros. Ltd. v. National Sewing Thread Co. (1951): Underscored that prior use and reputation built over years entitle a party (e.g., Officer’s Choice) to stronger protection, even if registration is defective.
- Nandhini Deluxe v. Karnataka Co-Operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd. (2018): Introduced the principle that long coexistence in the market may dilute exclusivity unless confusion is clearly shown, providing a potential defense for the later entrant (Original Choice).
Precedents on Alcohol Branding
- Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. Scotch Whisky Association (2008): Emphasized the need for stricter scrutiny in alcohol branding given public interest concerns and the history of deliberate imitation in the liquor industry.
Current Status of the Dispute
The matter now rests in Supreme Court–mandated mediation. The central question is whether a trademark with long-standing registration and market presence (Original Choice) can be cancelled after decades of coexistence, or if a mediated solution involving changes to packaging and trade dress is the appropriate remedy. The mediation outcome will set an important precedent for commercial disputes in India.
