Introduction
Trademark law exists at the crossroads of commerce and consumer protection. Its central purpose is to prevent one trader from riding on the coattails of another’s hard-earned reputation. Yet the law must equally guard against the monopolisation of ordinary words and commonplace expressions that belong to the public at large.
The Supreme Court of India, in its judgement delivered on August 14, 2025, in the case of Pernod Ricard India Private Limited & Another versus Karanveer Singh Chhabra, addressed this delicate balance with considerable thoroughness.
The case arose from the whisky industry and involved the question of whether a small regional trader’s brand, “LONDON PRIDE”, was deceptively similar to the internationally renowned brands “BLENDERS PRIDE”, “IMPERIAL BLUE”, and “SEAGRAM’S”, all owned by the liquor giant Pernod Ricard India Private Limited.
The judgement is significant not merely for its outcome but for the clarity it brings to the application of the anti-dissection rule, the dominant feature test, and the average consumer standard in trademark disputes involving composite marks.
It also takes note of recent developments in United Kingdom trademark jurisprudence, particularly the emerging doctrine of post-sale confusion, while explaining why that doctrine did not apply to the facts before it.
Case Overview At A Glance
| Particular | Details |
|---|---|
| Case Title | Pernod Ricard India Private Limited & Another Vs Karanveer Singh Chhabra |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Date of Judgment | August 14, 2025 |
| Case Number | Civil Appeal No. 10638 of 2025 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 28489 of 2023) |
| Neutral Citation | 2025 INSC 981 |
| Primary Issue | Trademark infringement and deceptive similarity involving composite marks. |
Factual And Procedural Background
Pernod Ricard India Private Limited, the first appellant, is one of India’s most prominent manufacturers and distributors of wines, liquors, and spirits.
The trademark “BLENDERS’ PRIDE” was coined and adopted by the appellants’ predecessor and has been in extensive worldwide use since 1973. It was registered in India on March 25, 1994, under Registration No. 623365 in Class 33 for wines, spirits, and liqueurs.
The product was officially launched in the Indian market in 1995 and achieved an annual turnover exceeding INR 1,700 crores for the financial year 2019-20.
The trademark “IMPERIAL BLUE” was launched in India in 1997.
Two separate device registrations were obtained for this mark:
- Registration No. 3296387 dated June 28, 2016.
- Registration No. 3327621 dated August 3, 2016.
Both registrations were obtained in Class 33 for alcoholic beverages other than beers.
The brand “IMPERIAL BLUE” achieved an annual turnover exceeding INR 2,700 crores for the financial year 2018-19.
Both brands enjoy formidable goodwill and reputation in India and internationally.
Discovery Of The Alleged Infringement
In May 2019, the appellants became aware that one Karanveer Singh Chhabra, the respondent, had been marketing whisky under the mark “LONDON PRIDE” in the State of Madhya Pradesh using packaging that was allegedly deceptively similar to the appellants’ products.
The appellants alleged that the respondent was using the “SEAGRAM’S” embossed bottles for his product, in addition to copying the colour combination, get-up, and trade dress of “IMPERIAL BLUE” and adopting a mark phonetically similar to “BLENDERS PRIDE”.
The respondent, it was pointed out, had only a pending application for the mark “LONDON PRIDE” and had no registered trademark rights of his own.
Commercial Court Proceedings
Aggrieved, the appellants instituted Civil Suit No. 3 of 2020 before the Commercial Court at District Judge level, Indore, seeking:
- Permanent injunction
- Damages
- Account of profits
- Delivery up of infringing material
Alongside the main suit, an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed seeking an interim injunction.
By order dated November 26, 2020, the Commercial Court dismissed the interim injunction application, finding that the only common element was the word “PRIDE” and that the overall packaging, bottle shape, and logos of the two brands were entirely different.
High Court Appeal
The appellants challenged this before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore by filing Misc. Appeal No. 232 of 2021.
The High Court, by its judgement dated November 3, 2023, dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Commercial Court.
Appeal Before The Supreme Court
The appellants then approached the Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition No. 28489 of 2023, which was converted into Civil Appeal No. 10638 of 2025 upon leave being granted.
Procedural History Of The Case
| Stage | Proceeding | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Civil Suit No. 3 of 2020 before Commercial Court, Indore | Interim injunction refused. |
| 2 | Mis c. Appeal No. 232 of 2021 before Madhya Pradesh High Court | Appeal dismissed. |
| 3 | SLP (C) No. 28489 of 2023 | Leave granted. |
| 4 | Civil Appeal No. 10638 of 2025 before Supreme Court | The matter was heard on its merits. |
The Dispute Before The Supreme Court
The core dispute before the Supreme Court was whether the respondent’s mark “LONDON PRIDE” was deceptively similar to the appellants’ registered trademarks “BLENDER’S PRIDE” and “IMPERIAL BLUE” so as to entitle the appellants to an interim injunction.
Appellants’ Contentions
The appellants contended that the respondent had dishonestly and deliberately imitated multiple elements of their established brands.
They pointed out the following:
- Both “BLENDER’S PRIDE” and “LONDON PRIDE” share the word “PRIDE”.
- The colour combination on the packaging of “LONDON PRIDE”—dark blue, light blue, gold, and white—was identical to “IMPERIAL BLUE”.
- The dome structure appearing on the label was the same.
- The bottle shapes were identical.
- The respondent allegedly used “SEAGRAM’S” embossed bottles.
The appellants argued that the respondent’s conduct was not coincidental but was a calculated attempt to pass off his goods as those of the appellants or to create an impression of association.
Respondent’s Contentions
The respondent denied all allegations and contended that his mark “LONDON PRIDE” was entirely dissimilar in name, appearance, and composition from any of the appellants’ marks.
He maintained the following:
- The products were sold in sealed boxes.
- The boxes were visually distinct in terms of colour scheme.
- The typography differed.
- The logos were different.
- The graphics were entirely distinguishable.
- The word “PRIDE” was a common, laudatory English word over which no exclusive rights could be claimed.
Reasoning And Analysis Of The Court
The Supreme Court, authored by Justice R. Mahadevan and concurred in by Justice J.B. Pardiwala, undertook an extensive and systematic analysis of the legal framework, precedents, and facts before arriving at its conclusion.
Statutory Framework Under The Trademarks Act, 1999
The court began by setting out the statutory framework under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
It noted the following statutory provisions:
| Provision | Legal Principle |
|---|---|
| Section 2(1)(h) | Defines “deceptively similar” as a mark that so nearly resembles another as to be likely to deceive or cause confusion. |
| Section 17(1) | Grants exclusive rights over the trademark taken as a whole upon registration. |
| Section 17(2) | Clarifies that where a trademark contains any element that is common to the trade or non-distinctive, registration does not confer exclusive rights over that element in isolation. |
| Section 29 | Defines infringement. |
| Section 135 | Empowers courts to grant injunctions and other remedies. |
Important Judicial Precedents Considered
The Court conducted a comprehensive survey of earlier judicial precedents before applying the law to the facts of the case.
Coca-Cola Company Of Canada Ltd v. Pepsi-Cola Company Of Canada Ltd.
The Court referred to the Privy Council decision in Coca-Cola Company of Canada Ltd v. Pepsi-Cola Company of Canada Ltd, reported at AIR 1942 PC 40.
It was held that the word “Cola” was a common descriptive term used widely in the beverage industry and that the distinctive features of the competing marks were “Coca” and “Pepsi”, respectively.
This case established that the mere presence of a shared element, if that element is descriptive or commonly used, does not create deceptive similarity.
Corn Products Refining Co. v. Shangrila Food Products Ltd.
In Corn Products Refining Co. v. Shangrila Food Products Ltd, reported at AIR 1960 SC 142, the Court had found that “Glucovita” and “Gluvita” were phonetically and visually similar and likely to mislead an average consumer with imperfect recollection.
The Court noted the principle that where a common element is present in many marks in the same market, purchasers tend to pay more attention to other distinctive features.
Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satya Deo Gupta
In Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satya Deo Gupta, reported at AIR 1963 SC 449, the Supreme Court had held that marks must be assessed as a whole and not dissected into their component parts.
An average purchaser with imperfect recollection goes by the overall impression of the mark rather than its etymological breakdown.
The marks “Amritdhara” and “Lakshmandhara” were held deceptively similar on account of their structural and phonetic resemblance in the context of similar medicinal products.
Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories
In Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories, reported at AIR 1965 SC 980, the Court distinguished infringement from passing off and held that in an infringement action, if the essential features of the plaintiff’s mark have been copied by the defendant, differences in get-up, packaging, or additional writing are immaterial.
The Court cautioned, however, against mechanical side-by-side comparison and held that the true test is whether the defendant’s mark, taken as a whole, is deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s registered mark.
Parle Products (P) Ltd. v. J.P. & Co., Mysore
In Parle Products (P) Ltd v. J.P. & Co., Mysore, reported at (1972) 1 SCC 618, the Court laid down that broad and essential features of the rival marks must be considered and that an average purchaser can be misled if one product bears such an overall similarity to another that it is likely to be mistaken for it.
Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
In Cadila Healthcare Ltd v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd, reported at AIR 2001 SC 1952, the Court set out the multifactorial test for passing off actions based on deceptive similarity.
The factors include:
- Nature of the marks.
- Degree of visual resemblance.
- Degree of phonetic resemblance.
- Nature of goods.
- Class of purchasers.
- Mode of purchase.
- All surrounding circumstances.
The court also applied the “Pianotist Test” from Pianotist Co. Ltd’s application, reported at (1906) 23 RPC 774, which requires simultaneous consideration of:
- Visual similarity.
- Phonetic similarity.
- Nature of goods.
- Class of consumers.
- All surrounding circumstances.
Khoday Distilleries Limited v. Scotch Whisky Association
In Khoday Distilleries Limited v. Scotch Whisky Association, reported at (2008) 10 SCC 723, the Supreme Court held that where the class of buyers is educated and economically well-placed, a different standard of the average consumer applies compared to products sold to illiterate or poor consumers.
The Court rejected the claim that the mark “Peter Scot” was deceptively similar to “Scotch”, finding that the adoption was bona fide.
Interim Injunction Principles
On the issue of interim injunctions, the court referred to:
- Wander Ltd v. Antox India (P) Ltd, reported at 1990 Supp SCC 727.
- Anand Prasad Agarwalla v. Tarkeshwar Prasad, reported at (2001) 5 SCC 568.
- Ramakant Ambalal Choksi v. Harish Ambalal Choksi and Others, reported at 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3538.
These decisions reiterate that appellate courts should ordinarily not interfere with discretionary interim orders unless the discretion has been exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, or perversely.
They also emphasise that courts should avoid conducting a mini-trial while deciding applications for interim injunctions and should accord due deference to the trial court’s findings.
Exclusive Rights Over Generic And Laudatory Terms
On the principle that exclusive rights cannot be claimed over generic or laudatory terms, the Court referred to Godfrey Philips India Ltd v. Girnar Food & Beverages Pvt. Ltd, reported at (2004) 5 SCC 257, which unequivocally held that descriptive words denoting the character or quality of goods cannot be exclusively appropriated unless they have acquired distinctiveness through prolonged and exclusive use.
Application Of Legal Principles To The Present Case
The Court then applied these principles with care to the specific facts.
Similarity And Distinctiveness Of The Marks
On the question of similarity and distinctiveness, it held that “BLENDERS PRIDE”, “IMPERIAL BLUE”, and “SEAGRAM’S” are inherently distinctive marks.
However, the term “PRIDE”, which is a common laudatory English word suggesting excellence or heritage, is widely used in the alcoholic beverages industry.
Judicial notice was taken of multiple registrations under Class 33 incorporating “PRIDE”, including the following:
- McDowell’s Pride
- Highland Pride
- Royal Pride
- Pride of India
- Rockford Pride
- Oak Pride
The Court observed that these registrations demonstrate that the word is publici juris and cannot be monopolised by any single trader.
The shared use of elements such as blue and gold colours, while noted, was found insufficient to establish deceptive similarity because such colour combinations are common in the premium liquor segment.
The placement of elements, design of labels, font styles, and emblems were found to differ in material respects.
Anti-Dissection Rule
On the anti-dissection rule, the Court found that the appellants were, ironically, themselves violating this very principle by isolating the word “PRIDE” as the basis for comparison.
The court held that when the marks “BLENDERS PRIDE”, “IMPERIAL BLUE”, and “SEAGRAM’S” are compared in their entirety with “LONDON PRIDE”, they are structurally, phonetically, and visually distinct.
The mere presence of the common word “PRIDE” does not render the competing marks deceptively similar.
Dominant Feature Test
Applying the dominant feature test, the Court held that in composite marks like “BLENDERS PRIDE” or “IMPERIAL BLUE”, the dominant elements are “BLENDERS” and “IMPERIAL”, respectively, owing to their distinctive and less frequently used character.
The term “LONDON” in the respondent’s mark introduces a geographical identifier that conveys a distinct brand identity.
The respondent’s mark therefore does not imitate the dominant features of the appellants’ marks.
Milk And Water Analogy Used By The Court
An illuminating analogy was employed by the Court to explain this principle:
If a small amount of milk is added to a half-glass of water, the mixture becomes cloudy, but the dominant character remains watery. Conversely, if water is added to a half-glass of milk, the result still appears to be milk. Similarly, in trademark analysis, the relative prominence and distinctiveness of the elements determine the overall perception. A dominant feature can shape consumer perception in the same way that milk overwhelms water in the second scenario.
Previous Litigation Involving The Word “Pride”
The Court also took note of the fact that the appellants had previously failed in a similar challenge against United Spirits Limited’s mark “Royal Challenge American Pride”.
In Pernod Ricard India (P) Ltd v. United Spirits Ltd, reported at 2023 SCC OnLine P&H 477, the Punjab and Haryana High Court had held that the appellants had no independent registration for the word “Pride” and could not claim exclusive rights over it.
Crucially, the appellants had themselves stated in their reply to the Trademark Registrar’s objection during registration proceedings that the word “PRIDE” was not independently distinctive and that the mark must be compared as a whole.
Having taken this position before the Registry, they were estopped from now claiming that “pride” was the dominant element warranting protection.
The Special Leave Petition filed against this judgement was dismissed by the Supreme Court on September 6, 2023.
Observations On Intellectual Property Litigation
The Court noted with concern the observation in Bajaj Auto Ltd v. TVS Motor Co. Ltd, reported at (2009) 9 SCC 797, that trademark and intellectual property litigation in India is often fought primarily at the stage of interim injunction rather than reaching final adjudication.
Citing this judgement, the Court reinforced the need for time-bound disposal of the main suit.
Post-Sale Confusion Doctrine
Regarding post-sale confusion, the Court took note of the United Kingdom Supreme Court’s recent decision in Iconix Luxembourg Holdings SARL v Dream Pairs Europe Inc., reported at (2025) UKSC 25, which elaborated on the doctrine of post-sale confusion—the confusion that arises not at the point of purchase but afterwards, when the product is seen in use by the public at large.
While the Court found this doctrine significant for future consideration in India, it held that it had no direct application to the facts of the present case since the goods in question—whisky—are intended for private consumption and not for public display.
Finding On The “SEAGRAM’S” Embossing Allegation
On the allegation of “SEAGRAM’S” embossing, the Court affirmed the Commercial Court’s finding that the bottle produced as evidence by the appellants did not bear the embossed “SEAGRAM QUALITY” mark and that no invoice or witness was produced to support this claim, rendering the allegation unreliable.
Hybrid Infringement Pleading Rejected
The Court also took a dim view of the appellants’ strategy of combining elements from two distinct marks—“BLENDERS PRIDE” and “IMPERIAL BLUE”—to challenge the respondent’s mark “LONDON PRIDE”.
It termed this a hybrid and legally untenable pleading, holding that each mark must be assessed independently and that cherry-picking generic or unregistered features from multiple marks to fabricate a composite infringement claim is not permissible.
Final Decision Of The Court
The Supreme Court dismissed Civil Appeal No. 10638 of 2025.
It found no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Commercial Court and the High Court.
The appellants had failed to establish a prima facie case of deceptive similarity sufficient to justify the grant of an interim injunction.
However, recognising that the main suit was still pending, the court directed the Commercial Court to proceed with the trial and dispose of Civil Suit No. 3 of 2020 on its merits, uninfluenced by any observations made during the interlocutory proceedings, within four months of the receipt of a certified copy of the judgement.
No order as to costs was made.
Key Points Of Law Settled By The Supreme Court
The judgement crystallises several important points of law in Indian trademark jurisprudence.
- The word “PRIDE”, being a common laudatory term extensively used in the alcoholic beverages industry, is publici juris and cannot be monopolised by any single trader unless it is affirmatively proved to have acquired secondary meaning exclusively pointing to that trader’s product.
- The anti-dissection rule requires marks to be compared as a whole, and a party cannot simultaneously invoke this rule while seeking to isolate a single element for protection.
- The dominant feature of a composite mark is typically its most inherently distinctive component, and generic or laudatory elements do not ordinarily qualify as dominant features.
- In premium and ultra-premium product markets, the average consumer exercises greater care and attentiveness, which reduces the likelihood of confusion.
- An application for an interim injunction requires concurrent satisfaction of:
- Prima facie case Balance of convenience Irreparable harm
- Exclusive rights over individual elements of a composite mark, such as bottle shape, colour combinations, or generic words, cannot be asserted unless those elements have been separately registered or have acquired clear secondary meaning.
- The emerging doctrine of post-sale confusion, while now recognised in the United Kingdom, is not yet applicable under Indian law in the context of goods intended for private consumption.
- A party who has relinquished a claim over a standalone word during trademark registration proceedings before the Registrar is estopped from asserting exclusive rights over that word in subsequent infringement or passing-off proceedings.
Legal Principles Established At A Glance
| Legal Issue | Principle Settled By The Supreme Court |
|---|---|
| Common Laudatory Words | Cannot ordinarily be monopolised. |
| Composite Trademarks | Must be compared as a whole. |
| Anti-Dissection Rule | Individual components cannot be isolated for comparison. |
| Dominant Feature Test | The distinctive portion generally determines consumer perception. |
| Premium Consumer Standard | Educated purchasers are less likely to be confused. |
| Interim Injunction | Requires a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. |
| Generic Elements | Cannot receive exclusive protection without independent distinctiveness. |
| Post-Sale Confusion | Recognised abroad but not applied in this case. |
| Estoppel | Previous admissions before the Trademark Registry may bind future litigation. |
Case Details
| Case Title | Pernod Ricard India Private Limited & Another Vs Karanveer Singh Chhabra |
|---|---|
| Date of Order | August 14, 2025 |
| Case Number | Civil Appeal No. 10638 of 2025 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 28489 of 2023) |
| Neutral Citation | 2025 INSC 981 |
| Name of Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Name of Honourable Judges | Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan |
| Area of Law | Trademark Law | Intellectual Property Law | Passing Off | Infringement | Composite Marks |
Written By
Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman
IP Adjutor (Patent and Trademark Attorney)
High Court of Delhi
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
What was the main issue in this case?
The Supreme Court examined whether the trademark “LONDON PRIDE” was deceptively similar to “BLENDERS PRIDE” and “IMPERIAL BLUE”.
Can common laudatory words receive exclusive trademark protection?
The court held that common laudatory words such as “PRIDE” generally cannot be monopolised unless they acquire an exclusive secondary meaning.
Which trademark principle did the Supreme Court reaffirm?
The judgement strongly reaffirmed the anti-dissection rule and the dominant feature test for comparing composite trademarks.
Disclaimer
Readers are advised not to treat this as a substitute for legal advice as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
