{"id":27784,"date":"2026-07-12T07:46:54","date_gmt":"2026-07-12T07:46:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=27784"},"modified":"2026-07-12T07:52:59","modified_gmt":"2026-07-12T07:52:59","slug":"supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-why-london-pride-did-not-infringe-blenders-pride-pernod-ricard-judgment-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-why-london-pride-did-not-infringe-blenders-pride-pernod-ricard-judgment-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court on Trademark Infringement: Why &#8220;London Pride&#8221; Did Not Infringe &#8220;Blenders Pride&#8221; | Pernod Ricard Judgment (2025)"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h2 id=\"h-introduction\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Introduction\"><\/span>Introduction<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">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&#8217;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.<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_85 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-why-london-pride-did-not-infringe-blenders-pride-pernod-ricard-judgment-2025\/#Introduction\" >Introduction<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-why-london-pride-did-not-infringe-blenders-pride-pernod-ricard-judgment-2025\/#Case_Overview_At_A_Glance\" >Case Overview At A Glance<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-why-london-pride-did-not-infringe-blenders-pride-pernod-ricard-judgment-2025\/#Factual_And_Procedural_Background\" >Factual And Procedural Background<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-why-london-pride-did-not-infringe-blenders-pride-pernod-ricard-judgment-2025\/#Discovery_Of_The_Alleged_Infringement\" >Discovery Of The Alleged Infringement<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-why-london-pride-did-not-infringe-blenders-pride-pernod-ricard-judgment-2025\/#Commercial_Court_Proceedings\" >Commercial Court Proceedings<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-why-london-pride-did-not-infringe-blenders-pride-pernod-ricard-judgment-2025\/#High_Court_Appeal\" >High Court Appeal<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-why-london-pride-did-not-infringe-blenders-pride-pernod-ricard-judgment-2025\/#Appeal_Before_The_Supreme_Court\" >Appeal Before The Supreme Court<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-why-london-pride-did-not-infringe-blenders-pride-pernod-ricard-judgment-2025\/#Procedural_History_Of_The_Case\" >Procedural History Of The Case<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-why-london-pride-did-not-infringe-blenders-pride-pernod-ricard-judgment-2025\/#The_Dispute_Before_The_Supreme_Court\" >The Dispute Before The Supreme Court<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-10\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-why-london-pride-did-not-infringe-blenders-pride-pernod-ricard-judgment-2025\/#Appellants_Contentions\" >Appellants&#8217; Contentions<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-11\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-why-london-pride-did-not-infringe-blenders-pride-pernod-ricard-judgment-2025\/#Respondents_Contentions\" >Respondent&#8217;s Contentions<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-12\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-why-london-pride-did-not-infringe-blenders-pride-pernod-ricard-judgment-2025\/#Reasoning_And_Analysis_Of_The_Court\" >Reasoning And Analysis Of The Court<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-13\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-why-london-pride-did-not-infringe-blenders-pride-pernod-ricard-judgment-2025\/#Statutory_Framework_Under_The_Trademarks_Act_1999\" >Statutory Framework Under The Trademarks Act, 1999<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-14\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-why-london-pride-did-not-infringe-blenders-pride-pernod-ricard-judgment-2025\/#Important_Judicial_Precedents_Considered\" >Important Judicial Precedents Considered<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-15\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-why-london-pride-did-not-infringe-blenders-pride-pernod-ricard-judgment-2025\/#Coca-Cola_Company_Of_Canada_Ltd_v_Pepsi-Cola_Company_Of_Canada_Ltd\" >Coca-Cola Company Of Canada Ltd v. Pepsi-Cola Company Of Canada Ltd.<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-16\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-why-london-pride-did-not-infringe-blenders-pride-pernod-ricard-judgment-2025\/#Corn_Products_Refining_Co_v_Shangrila_Food_Products_Ltd\" >Corn Products Refining Co. v. Shangrila Food Products Ltd.<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-17\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-why-london-pride-did-not-infringe-blenders-pride-pernod-ricard-judgment-2025\/#Amritdhara_Pharmacy_v_Satya_Deo_Gupta\" >Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satya Deo Gupta<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-18\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-why-london-pride-did-not-infringe-blenders-pride-pernod-ricard-judgment-2025\/#Kaviraj_Pandit_Durga_Dutt_Sharma_v_Navaratna_Pharmaceutical_Laboratories\" >Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-19\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-why-london-pride-did-not-infringe-blenders-pride-pernod-ricard-judgment-2025\/#Parle_Products_P_Ltd_v_JP_Co_Mysore\" >Parle Products (P) Ltd. v. J.P. &amp; Co., Mysore<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-20\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-why-london-pride-did-not-infringe-blenders-pride-pernod-ricard-judgment-2025\/#Cadila_Healthcare_Ltd_v_Cadila_Pharmaceuticals_Ltd\" >Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd.<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-21\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-why-london-pride-did-not-infringe-blenders-pride-pernod-ricard-judgment-2025\/#Khoday_Distilleries_Limited_v_Scotch_Whisky_Association\" >Khoday Distilleries Limited v. Scotch Whisky Association<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-22\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-why-london-pride-did-not-infringe-blenders-pride-pernod-ricard-judgment-2025\/#Interim_Injunction_Principles\" >Interim Injunction Principles<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-23\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-why-london-pride-did-not-infringe-blenders-pride-pernod-ricard-judgment-2025\/#Exclusive_Rights_Over_Generic_And_Laudatory_Terms\" >Exclusive Rights Over Generic And Laudatory Terms<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-24\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-why-london-pride-did-not-infringe-blenders-pride-pernod-ricard-judgment-2025\/#Application_Of_Legal_Principles_To_The_Present_Case\" >Application Of Legal Principles To The Present Case<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-25\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-why-london-pride-did-not-infringe-blenders-pride-pernod-ricard-judgment-2025\/#Similarity_And_Distinctiveness_Of_The_Marks\" >Similarity And Distinctiveness Of The Marks<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-26\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-why-london-pride-did-not-infringe-blenders-pride-pernod-ricard-judgment-2025\/#Anti-Dissection_Rule\" >Anti-Dissection Rule<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-27\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-why-london-pride-did-not-infringe-blenders-pride-pernod-ricard-judgment-2025\/#Dominant_Feature_Test\" >Dominant Feature Test<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-28\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-why-london-pride-did-not-infringe-blenders-pride-pernod-ricard-judgment-2025\/#Milk_And_Water_Analogy_Used_By_The_Court\" >Milk And Water Analogy Used By The Court<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-29\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-why-london-pride-did-not-infringe-blenders-pride-pernod-ricard-judgment-2025\/#Previous_Litigation_Involving_The_Word_%E2%80%9CPride%E2%80%9D\" >Previous Litigation Involving The Word &#8220;Pride&#8221;<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-30\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-why-london-pride-did-not-infringe-blenders-pride-pernod-ricard-judgment-2025\/#Observations_On_Intellectual_Property_Litigation\" >Observations On Intellectual Property Litigation<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-31\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-why-london-pride-did-not-infringe-blenders-pride-pernod-ricard-judgment-2025\/#Post-Sale_Confusion_Doctrine\" >Post-Sale Confusion Doctrine<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-32\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-why-london-pride-did-not-infringe-blenders-pride-pernod-ricard-judgment-2025\/#Finding_On_The_%E2%80%9CSEAGRAMS%E2%80%9D_Embossing_Allegation\" >Finding On The &#8220;SEAGRAM&#8217;S&#8221; Embossing Allegation<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-33\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-why-london-pride-did-not-infringe-blenders-pride-pernod-ricard-judgment-2025\/#Hybrid_Infringement_Pleading_Rejected\" >Hybrid Infringement Pleading Rejected<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-34\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-why-london-pride-did-not-infringe-blenders-pride-pernod-ricard-judgment-2025\/#Final_Decision_Of_The_Court\" >Final Decision Of The Court<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-35\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-why-london-pride-did-not-infringe-blenders-pride-pernod-ricard-judgment-2025\/#Key_Points_Of_Law_Settled_By_The_Supreme_Court\" >Key Points Of Law Settled By The Supreme Court<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-36\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-why-london-pride-did-not-infringe-blenders-pride-pernod-ricard-judgment-2025\/#Legal_Principles_Established_At_A_Glance\" >Legal Principles Established At A Glance<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-37\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-why-london-pride-did-not-infringe-blenders-pride-pernod-ricard-judgment-2025\/#Case_Details\" >Case Details<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-38\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-why-london-pride-did-not-infringe-blenders-pride-pernod-ricard-judgment-2025\/#Written_By\" >Written By<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-39\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-why-london-pride-did-not-infringe-blenders-pride-pernod-ricard-judgment-2025\/#Frequently_Asked_Questions_FAQs\" >Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-40\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-why-london-pride-did-not-infringe-blenders-pride-pernod-ricard-judgment-2025\/#What_was_the_main_issue_in_this_case\" >What was the main issue in this case?<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-41\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-why-london-pride-did-not-infringe-blenders-pride-pernod-ricard-judgment-2025\/#Can_common_laudatory_words_receive_exclusive_trademark_protection\" >Can common laudatory words receive exclusive trademark protection?<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-42\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-why-london-pride-did-not-infringe-blenders-pride-pernod-ricard-judgment-2025\/#Which_trademark_principle_did_the_Supreme_Court_reaffirm\" >Which trademark principle did the Supreme Court reaffirm?<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-43\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-why-london-pride-did-not-infringe-blenders-pride-pernod-ricard-judgment-2025\/#Disclaimer\" >Disclaimer<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Supreme Court of India, in its judgement delivered on August 14, 2025, in the case of <strong>Pernod Ricard India Private Limited &amp; Another versus Karanveer Singh Chhabra<\/strong>, addressed this delicate balance with considerable thoroughness.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The case arose from the whisky industry and involved the question of whether a small regional trader&#8217;s brand, <strong>&#8220;LONDON PRIDE&#8221;,<\/strong> was deceptively similar to the internationally renowned brands <strong>&#8220;BLENDERS PRIDE&#8221;, &#8220;IMPERIAL BLUE&#8221;,<\/strong> and <strong>&#8220;SEAGRAM&#8217;S&#8221;<\/strong>, all owned by the liquor giant Pernod Ricard India Private Limited.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-case-overview-at-a-glance\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Case_Overview_At_A_Glance\"><\/span>Case Overview At A Glance<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Particular<\/th><th>Details<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Case Title<\/td><td>Pernod Ricard India Private Limited &amp; Another Vs Karanveer Singh Chhabra<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Court<\/td><td>Supreme Court of India<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Date of Judgment<\/td><td>August 14, 2025<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Case Number<\/td><td>Civil Appeal No. 10638 of 2025 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 28489 of 2023)<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Neutral Citation<\/td><td>2025 INSC 981<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Primary Issue<\/td><td>Trademark infringement and deceptive similarity involving composite marks.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-factual-and-procedural-background\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Factual_And_Procedural_Background\"><\/span>Factual And Procedural Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Pernod Ricard India Private Limited, the first appellant, is one of India&#8217;s most prominent manufacturers and distributors of wines, liquors, and spirits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The trademark <strong>&#8220;BLENDERS&#8217; PRIDE&#8221;<\/strong> was coined and adopted by the appellants&#8217; 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The trademark <strong>&#8220;IMPERIAL BLUE&#8221;<\/strong> was launched in India in 1997.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Two separate device registrations were obtained for this mark:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Registration No. 3296387 dated June 28, 2016.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Registration No. 3327621 dated August 3, 2016.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Both registrations were obtained in Class 33 for alcoholic beverages other than beers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The brand <strong>&#8220;IMPERIAL BLUE&#8221;<\/strong> achieved an annual turnover exceeding INR 2,700 crores for the financial year 2018-19.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Both brands enjoy formidable goodwill and reputation in India and internationally.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-discovery-of-the-alleged-infringement\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Discovery_Of_The_Alleged_Infringement\"><\/span>Discovery Of The Alleged Infringement<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In May 2019, the appellants became aware that one Karanveer Singh Chhabra, the respondent, had been marketing whisky under the mark <strong>&#8220;LONDON PRIDE&#8221;<\/strong> in the State of Madhya Pradesh using packaging that was allegedly deceptively similar to the appellants&#8217; products.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The appellants alleged that the respondent was using the <strong>&#8220;SEAGRAM&#8217;S&#8221;<\/strong> embossed bottles for his product, in addition to copying the colour combination, get-up, and trade dress of <strong>&#8220;IMPERIAL BLUE&#8221;<\/strong> and adopting a mark phonetically similar to <strong>&#8220;BLENDERS PRIDE&#8221;.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The respondent, it was pointed out, had only a pending application for the mark <strong>&#8220;LONDON PRIDE&#8221;<\/strong> and had no registered trademark rights of his own.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-commercial-court-proceedings\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Commercial_Court_Proceedings\"><\/span>Commercial Court Proceedings<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Aggrieved, the appellants instituted Civil Suit No. 3 of 2020 before the Commercial Court at District Judge level, Indore, seeking:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Permanent injunction<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Damages<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Account of profits<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Delivery up of infringing material<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">By order dated November 26, 2020, the Commercial Court dismissed the interim injunction application, finding that the only common element was the word <strong>&#8220;PRIDE&#8221;<\/strong> and that the overall packaging, bottle shape, and logos of the two brands were entirely different.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-high-court-appeal\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"High_Court_Appeal\"><\/span>High Court Appeal<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The appellants challenged this before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore by filing Misc. Appeal No. 232 of 2021.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The High Court, by its judgement dated November 3, 2023, dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Commercial Court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-appeal-before-the-supreme-court\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Appeal_Before_The_Supreme_Court\"><\/span>Appeal Before The Supreme Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-procedural-history-of-the-case\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Procedural_History_Of_The_Case\"><\/span>Procedural History Of The Case<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Stage<\/th><th>Proceeding<\/th><th>Outcome<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>1<\/td><td>Civil Suit No. 3 of 2020 before Commercial Court, Indore<\/td><td>Interim injunction refused.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>2<\/td><td>Mis c. Appeal No. 232 of 2021 before Madhya Pradesh High Court<\/td><td>Appeal dismissed.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>3<\/td><td>SLP (C) No. 28489 of 2023<\/td><td>Leave granted.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>4<\/td><td>Civil Appeal No. 10638 of 2025 before Supreme Court<\/td><td>The matter was heard on its merits.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-the-dispute-before-the-supreme-court\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"The_Dispute_Before_The_Supreme_Court\"><\/span>The Dispute Before The Supreme Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The core dispute before the Supreme Court was whether the respondent&#8217;s mark <strong>&#8220;LONDON PRIDE&#8221;<\/strong> was deceptively similar to the appellants&#8217; registered trademarks <strong>&#8220;BLENDER&#8217;S PRIDE&#8221;<\/strong> and <strong>&#8220;IMPERIAL <\/strong>BLUE&#8221; so as to entitle the appellants to an interim injunction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-appellants-contentions\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Appellants_Contentions\"><\/span>Appellants&#8217; Contentions<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The appellants contended that the respondent had dishonestly and deliberately imitated multiple elements of their established brands.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">They pointed out the following:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Both <strong>&#8220;BLENDER&#8217;S PRIDE&#8221;<\/strong> and <strong>&#8220;LONDON PRIDE&#8221;<\/strong> share the word <strong>&#8220;PRIDE&#8221;.<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The colour combination on the packaging of <strong>&#8220;LONDON PRIDE&#8221;<\/strong>\u2014dark blue, light blue, gold, and white\u2014was identical to <strong>&#8220;IMPERIAL BLUE&#8221;.<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The dome structure appearing on the label was the same.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The bottle shapes were identical.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The respondent allegedly used <strong>&#8220;SEAGRAM&#8217;S&#8221;<\/strong> embossed bottles.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The appellants argued that the respondent&#8217;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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-respondent-s-contentions\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Respondents_Contentions\"><\/span>Respondent&#8217;s Contentions<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The respondent denied all allegations and contended that his mark <strong>&#8220;LONDON PRIDE&#8221;<\/strong> was entirely dissimilar in name, appearance, and composition from any of the appellants&#8217; marks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">He maintained the following:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The products were sold in sealed boxes.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The boxes were visually distinct in terms of colour scheme.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The typography differed.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The logos were different.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The graphics were entirely distinguishable.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The word <strong>&#8220;PRIDE&#8221;<\/strong> was a common, laudatory English word over which no exclusive rights could be claimed.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-reasoning-and-analysis-of-the-court\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Reasoning_And_Analysis_Of_The_Court\"><\/span>Reasoning And Analysis Of The Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-statutory-framework-under-the-trademarks-act-1999\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Statutory_Framework_Under_The_Trademarks_Act_1999\"><\/span>Statutory Framework Under The Trademarks Act, 1999<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The court began by setting out the statutory framework under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">It noted the following statutory provisions:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Provision<\/th><th>Legal Principle<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Section 2(1)(h)<\/td><td>Defines &#8220;deceptively similar&#8221; as a mark that so nearly resembles another as to be likely to deceive or cause confusion.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Section 17(1)<\/td><td>Grants exclusive rights over the trademark taken as a whole upon registration.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Section 17(2)<\/td><td>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.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Section 29<\/td><td>Defines infringement.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Section 135<\/td><td>Empowers courts to grant injunctions and other remedies.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-important-judicial-precedents-considered\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Important_Judicial_Precedents_Considered\"><\/span>Important Judicial Precedents Considered<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court conducted a comprehensive survey of earlier judicial precedents before applying the law to the facts of the case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-coca-cola-company-of-canada-ltd-v-pepsi-cola-company-of-canada-ltd\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Coca-Cola_Company_Of_Canada_Ltd_v_Pepsi-Cola_Company_Of_Canada_Ltd\"><\/span>Coca-Cola Company Of Canada Ltd v. Pepsi-Cola Company Of Canada Ltd.<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court referred to the Privy Council decision in <em>Coca-Cola Company of Canada Ltd v. Pepsi-Cola Company of Canada <\/em>Ltd, reported at AIR 1942 PC 40.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">It was held that the word <strong>&#8220;Cola&#8221;<\/strong> was a common descriptive term used widely in the beverage industry and that the distinctive features of the competing marks were <strong>&#8220;Coca&#8221;<\/strong> and <strong>&#8220;Pepsi&#8221;,<\/strong> respectively.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This case established that the mere presence of a shared element, if that element is descriptive or commonly used, does not create deceptive similarity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-corn-products-refining-co-v-shangrila-food-products-ltd\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Corn_Products_Refining_Co_v_Shangrila_Food_Products_Ltd\"><\/span>Corn Products Refining Co. v. Shangrila Food Products Ltd.<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In <em>Corn Products Refining Co. v. Shangrila Food Products <\/em>Ltd, reported at AIR 1960 SC 142, the Court had found that <strong>&#8220;Glucovita&#8221;<\/strong> and <strong>&#8220;Gluvita&#8221;<\/strong> were phonetically and visually similar and likely to mislead an average consumer with imperfect recollection.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-amritdhara-pharmacy-v-satya-deo-gupta\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Amritdhara_Pharmacy_v_Satya_Deo_Gupta\"><\/span>Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satya Deo Gupta<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In <em>Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satya Deo Gupta<\/em>, 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">An average purchaser with imperfect recollection goes by the overall impression of the mark rather than its etymological breakdown.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The marks <strong>&#8220;Amritdhara&#8221;<\/strong> and <strong>&#8220;Lakshmandhara&#8221;<\/strong> were held deceptively similar on account of their structural and phonetic resemblance in the context of similar medicinal products.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-kaviraj-pandit-durga-dutt-sharma-v-navaratna-pharmaceutical-laboratories\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Kaviraj_Pandit_Durga_Dutt_Sharma_v_Navaratna_Pharmaceutical_Laboratories\"><\/span>Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In <em>Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories<\/em>, 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&#8217;s mark have been copied by the defendant, differences in get-up, packaging, or additional writing are immaterial.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court cautioned, however, against mechanical side-by-side comparison and held that the true test is whether the defendant&#8217;s mark, taken as a whole, is deceptively similar to the plaintiff&#8217;s registered mark.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-parle-products-p-ltd-v-j-p-amp-co-mysore\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Parle_Products_P_Ltd_v_JP_Co_Mysore\"><\/span>Parle Products (P) Ltd. v. J.P. &amp; Co., Mysore<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In <em>Parle Products (P) Ltd v. J.P. &amp; Co., Mysore<\/em>, 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-cadila-healthcare-ltd-v-cadila-pharmaceuticals-ltd\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Cadila_Healthcare_Ltd_v_Cadila_Pharmaceuticals_Ltd\"><\/span>Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd.<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In <em>Cadila Healthcare Ltd v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals <\/em>Ltd, reported at AIR 2001 SC 1952, the Court set out the multifactorial test for passing off actions based on deceptive similarity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The factors include:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Nature of the marks.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Degree of visual resemblance.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Degree of phonetic resemblance.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Nature of goods.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Class of purchasers.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Mode of purchase.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>All surrounding circumstances.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The court also applied the <strong>&#8220;Pianotist Test&#8221;<\/strong> from <em>Pianotist Co. Ltd&#8217;s <\/em>application, reported at (1906) 23 RPC 774, which requires simultaneous consideration of:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Visual similarity.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Phonetic similarity.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Nature of goods.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Class of consumers.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>All surrounding circumstances.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-khoday-distilleries-limited-v-scotch-whisky-association\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Khoday_Distilleries_Limited_v_Scotch_Whisky_Association\"><\/span>Khoday Distilleries Limited v. Scotch Whisky Association<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In <em>Khoday Distilleries Limited v. Scotch Whisky Association<\/em>, 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court rejected the claim that the mark <strong>&#8220;Peter Scot&#8221;<\/strong> was deceptively similar to <strong>&#8220;Scotch&#8221;<\/strong>, finding that the adoption was bona fide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-interim-injunction-principles\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Interim_Injunction_Principles\"><\/span>Interim Injunction Principles<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">On the issue of interim injunctions, the court referred to:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>Wander Ltd v. Antox India (P) <\/strong>Ltd, reported at 1990 Supp SCC 727.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Anand Prasad Agarwalla v. Tarkeshwar Prasad<\/strong>, reported at (2001) 5 SCC 568.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Ramakant Ambalal Choksi v. Harish Ambalal Choksi and Others<\/strong>, reported at 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3538.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">These decisions reiterate that appellate courts should ordinarily not interfere with discretionary interim orders unless the discretion has been exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, or perversely.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">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&#8217;s findings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-exclusive-rights-over-generic-and-laudatory-terms\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Exclusive_Rights_Over_Generic_And_Laudatory_Terms\"><\/span>Exclusive Rights Over Generic And Laudatory Terms<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">On the principle that exclusive rights cannot be claimed over generic or laudatory terms, the Court referred to <em>Godfrey Philips India Ltd v. Girnar Food &amp; Beverages Pvt. <\/em>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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-application-of-legal-principles-to-the-present-case\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Application_Of_Legal_Principles_To_The_Present_Case\"><\/span>Application Of Legal Principles To The Present Case<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court then applied these principles with care to the specific facts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-similarity-and-distinctiveness-of-the-marks\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Similarity_And_Distinctiveness_Of_The_Marks\"><\/span>Similarity And Distinctiveness Of The Marks<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">On the question of similarity and distinctiveness, it held that <strong>&#8220;BLENDERS PRIDE&#8221;, &#8220;IMPERIAL BLUE&#8221;,<\/strong> and <strong>&#8220;SEAGRAM&#8217;S&#8221;<\/strong> are inherently distinctive marks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">However, the term <strong>&#8220;PRIDE&#8221;,<\/strong> which is a common laudatory English word suggesting excellence or heritage, is widely used in the alcoholic beverages industry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Judicial notice was taken of multiple registrations under Class 33 incorporating <strong>&#8220;PRIDE&#8221;<\/strong>, including the following:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>McDowell&#8217;s Pride<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Highland Pride<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Royal Pride<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Pride of India<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Rockford Pride<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Oak Pride<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court observed that these registrations demonstrate that the word is <em>publici juris<\/em> and cannot be monopolised by any single trader.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The placement of elements, design of labels, font styles, and emblems were found to differ in material respects.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-anti-dissection-rule\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Anti-Dissection_Rule\"><\/span>Anti-Dissection Rule<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">On the anti-dissection rule, the Court found that the appellants were, ironically, themselves violating this very principle by isolating the word <strong>&#8220;PRIDE&#8221;<\/strong> as the basis for comparison.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The court held that when the marks <strong>&#8220;BLENDERS PRIDE&#8221;, &#8220;IMPERIAL BLUE&#8221;,<\/strong> and <strong>&#8220;SEAGRAM&#8217;S&#8221;<\/strong> are compared in their entirety with <strong>&#8220;LONDON PRIDE&#8221;,<\/strong> they are structurally, phonetically, and visually distinct.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The mere presence of the common word <strong>&#8220;PRIDE&#8221;<\/strong> does not render the competing marks deceptively similar.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-dominant-feature-test\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Dominant_Feature_Test\"><\/span>Dominant Feature Test<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Applying the dominant feature test, the Court held that in composite marks like <strong>&#8220;BLENDERS PRIDE&#8221;<\/strong> or <strong>&#8220;IMPERIAL BLUE&#8221;,<\/strong> the dominant elements are <strong>&#8220;BLENDERS&#8221;<\/strong> and <strong>&#8220;IMPERIAL&#8221;,<\/strong> respectively, owing to their distinctive and less frequently used character.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The term <strong>&#8220;LONDON&#8221;<\/strong> in the respondent&#8217;s mark introduces a geographical identifier that conveys a distinct brand identity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The respondent&#8217;s mark therefore does not imitate the dominant features of the appellants&#8217; marks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-milk-and-water-analogy-used-by-the-court\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Milk_And_Water_Analogy_Used_By_The_Court\"><\/span>Milk And Water Analogy Used By The Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">An illuminating analogy was employed by the Court to explain this principle:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">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.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-previous-litigation-involving-the-word-pride\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Previous_Litigation_Involving_The_Word_%E2%80%9CPride%E2%80%9D\"><\/span>Previous Litigation Involving The Word &#8220;Pride&#8221;<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court also took note of the fact that the appellants had previously failed in a similar challenge against United Spirits Limited&#8217;s mark <strong>&#8220;Royal Challenge American Pride&#8221;.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In <em>Pernod Ricard India (P) Ltd v. United Spirits <\/em>Ltd, reported at 2023 SCC OnLine P&amp;H 477, the Punjab and Haryana High Court had held that the appellants had no independent registration for the word <strong>&#8220;Pride&#8221;<\/strong> and could not claim exclusive rights over it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Crucially, the appellants had themselves stated in their reply to the Trademark Registrar&#8217;s objection during registration proceedings that the word <strong>&#8220;PRIDE&#8221;<\/strong> was not independently distinctive and that the mark must be compared as a whole.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Having taken this position before the Registry, they were estopped from now claiming that <strong>&#8220;pride&#8221;<\/strong> was the dominant element warranting protection.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Special Leave Petition filed against this judgement was dismissed by the Supreme Court on September 6, 2023.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-observations-on-intellectual-property-litigation\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Observations_On_Intellectual_Property_Litigation\"><\/span>Observations On Intellectual Property Litigation<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court noted with concern the observation in <em>Bajaj Auto Ltd v. TVS Motor Co. <\/em>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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Citing this judgement, the Court reinforced the need for time-bound disposal of the main suit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-post-sale-confusion-doctrine\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Post-Sale_Confusion_Doctrine\"><\/span>Post-Sale Confusion Doctrine<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Regarding post-sale confusion, the Court took note of the United Kingdom Supreme Court&#8217;s recent decision in <em>Iconix Luxembourg Holdings SARL v Dream Pairs Europe Inc.<\/em>, reported at (2025) UKSC 25, which elaborated on the doctrine of post-sale confusion\u2014the confusion that arises not at the point of purchase but afterwards, when the product is seen in use by the public at large.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">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\u2014whisky\u2014are intended for private consumption and not for public display.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-finding-on-the-seagram-s-embossing-allegation\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Finding_On_The_%E2%80%9CSEAGRAMS%E2%80%9D_Embossing_Allegation\"><\/span>Finding On The &#8220;SEAGRAM&#8217;S&#8221; Embossing Allegation<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">On the allegation of <strong>&#8220;SEAGRAM&#8217;S&#8221;<\/strong> embossing, the Court affirmed the Commercial Court&#8217;s finding that the bottle produced as evidence by the appellants did not bear the embossed <strong>&#8220;SEAGRAM QUALITY&#8221;<\/strong> mark and that no invoice or witness was produced to support this claim, rendering the allegation unreliable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-hybrid-infringement-pleading-rejected\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Hybrid_Infringement_Pleading_Rejected\"><\/span>Hybrid Infringement Pleading Rejected<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court also took a dim view of the appellants&#8217; strategy of combining elements from two distinct marks\u2014<strong>&#8220;BLENDERS PRIDE&#8221;<\/strong> and <strong>&#8220;IMPERIAL BLUE&#8221;<\/strong>\u2014to challenge the respondent&#8217;s mark <strong>&#8220;LONDON PRIDE&#8221;.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-final-decision-of-the-court\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Final_Decision_Of_The_Court\"><\/span>Final Decision Of The Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Supreme Court dismissed <strong>Civil Appeal No. 10638 of 2025.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">It found no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Commercial Court and the High Court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The appellants had failed to establish a <strong>prima facie<\/strong> case of deceptive similarity sufficient to justify the grant of an interim injunction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">However, recognising that the main suit was still pending, the court directed the Commercial Court to proceed with the trial and dispose of <strong>Civil Suit No. 3 of 2020<\/strong> 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">No order as to costs was made.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-key-points-of-law-settled-by-the-supreme-court\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_Points_Of_Law_Settled_By_The_Supreme_Court\"><\/span>Key Points Of Law Settled By The Supreme Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The judgement crystallises several important points of law in Indian trademark jurisprudence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The word <strong>&#8220;PRIDE&#8221;<\/strong>, being a common laudatory term extensively used in the alcoholic beverages industry, is <em>publici juris<\/em> and cannot be monopolised by any single trader unless it is affirmatively proved to have acquired secondary meaning exclusively pointing to that trader&#8217;s product.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>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.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>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.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>In premium and ultra-premium product markets, the average consumer exercises greater care and attentiveness, which reduces the likelihood of confusion.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>An application for an interim injunction requires concurrent satisfaction of:<ul><li>Prima facie case Balance of convenience Irreparable harm<\/li><\/ul>The mere existence of one element is insufficient.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>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.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>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.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>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.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-legal-principles-established-at-a-glance\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Legal_Principles_Established_At_A_Glance\"><\/span>Legal Principles Established At A Glance<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Legal Issue<\/th><th>Principle Settled By The Supreme Court<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Common Laudatory Words<\/td><td>Cannot ordinarily be monopolised.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Composite Trademarks<\/td><td>Must be compared as a whole.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Anti-Dissection Rule<\/td><td>Individual components cannot be isolated for comparison.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Dominant Feature Test<\/td><td>The distinctive portion generally determines consumer perception.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Premium Consumer Standard<\/td><td>Educated purchasers are less likely to be confused.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Interim Injunction<\/td><td>Requires a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Generic Elements<\/td><td>Cannot receive exclusive protection without independent distinctiveness.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Post-Sale Confusion<\/td><td>Recognised abroad but not applied in this case.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Estoppel<\/td><td>Previous admissions before the Trademark Registry may bind future litigation.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-case-details\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Case_Details\"><\/span>Case Details<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><tbody><tr><th>Case Title<\/th><td>Pernod Ricard India Private Limited &amp; Another Vs Karanveer Singh Chhabra<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Date of Order<\/th><td>August 14, 2025<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Case Number<\/th><td>Civil Appeal No. 10638 of 2025 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 28489 of 2023)<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Neutral Citation<\/th><td>2025 INSC 981<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Name of Court<\/th><td>Supreme Court of India<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Name of Honourable Judges<\/th><td>Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Area of Law<\/th><td>Trademark Law | Intellectual Property Law | Passing Off | Infringement | Composite Marks<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-written-by\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Written_By\"><\/span>Written By<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman<\/strong><br>IP Adjutor (Patent and Trademark Attorney)<br>High Court of Delhi<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-frequently-asked-questions-faqs\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Frequently_Asked_Questions_FAQs\"><\/span>Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-what-was-the-main-issue-in-this-case\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"What_was_the_main_issue_in_this_case\"><\/span>What was the main issue in this case?<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Supreme Court examined whether the trademark &#8220;LONDON PRIDE&#8221; was deceptively similar to &#8220;BLENDERS PRIDE&#8221; and &#8220;IMPERIAL BLUE&#8221;.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-can-common-laudatory-words-receive-exclusive-trademark-protection\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Can_common_laudatory_words_receive_exclusive_trademark_protection\"><\/span>Can common laudatory words receive exclusive trademark protection?<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The court held that common laudatory words such as &#8220;PRIDE&#8221; generally cannot be monopolised unless they acquire an exclusive secondary meaning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-which-trademark-principle-did-the-supreme-court-reaffirm\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Which_trademark_principle_did_the_Supreme_Court_reaffirm\"><\/span>Which trademark principle did the Supreme Court reaffirm?<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The judgement strongly reaffirmed the anti-dissection rule and the dominant feature test for comparing composite trademarks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-disclaimer\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Disclaimer\"><\/span>Disclaimer<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Readers are advised not to treat this as a substitute for legal advice as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-yoast-seo-related-links yoast-seo-related-links\">\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-blenders-pride-vs-london-pride-2025-insc-981-anti-dissection-rule-explained\/\">Supreme Court on Trademark Infringement: BLENDER&#8217;S PRIDE vs LONDON PRIDE (2025 INSC 981) | Anti-Dissection Rule Explained<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/publici-juris-and-laudatory-terms-non-monopolizability-in-trademark-law\/\">Publici Juris and Laudatory Terms: Non-Monopolisation in Trademark Law<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/religion-and-elections-in-india\/\">Is Religion the Only Option To Win Elections in India<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/non-use-and-rectification-of-trade-marks\/\">Non-Use and Rectification of Trade Marks<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/urban-policing-investment-india-vs-global-cities\/\">Investing in Safety: A Comparative Analysis of Urban Policing Across India and the World<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>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&#8217;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<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":56,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[5873],"tags":[5969],"class_list":["post-27784","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","category-trademark-law","tag-trademark-laws"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v27.9 (Yoast SEO v28.0) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-premium-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Supreme Court on Trademark Infringement: Why &quot;London Pride&quot; Did Not Infringe &quot;Blenders Pride&quot; | Pernod Ricard Judgment (2025) - Legal Service India - Articles<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"The Supreme Court explains why &quot;London Pride&quot; did not infringe &quot;Blenders Pride&quot; in a landmark 2025 trademark law judgement.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-why-london-pride-did-not-infringe-blenders-pride-pernod-ricard-judgment-2025\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Supreme Court on Trademark Infringement: Why &quot;London Pride&quot; Did Not Infringe &quot;Blenders Pride&quot; | Pernod Ricard Judgment (2025)\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The Supreme Court explains why &quot;London Pride&quot; did not infringe &quot;Blenders Pride&quot; in a landmark 2025 trademark law judgement.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-why-london-pride-did-not-infringe-blenders-pride-pernod-ricard-judgment-2025\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Legal Service India - Articles\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/legalservicesind\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-07-12T07:46:54+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-07-12T07:52:59+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legalserviceind\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@legalserviceind\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-why-london-pride-did-not-infringe-blenders-pride-pernod-ricard-judgment-2025\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-why-london-pride-did-not-infringe-blenders-pride-pernod-ricard-judgment-2025\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/96ae33c2330691e5b3ccd88cf127a305\"},\"headline\":\"Supreme Court on Trademark Infringement: Why &#8220;London Pride&#8221; Did Not Infringe &#8220;Blenders Pride&#8221; | Pernod Ricard Judgment (2025)\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-12T07:46:54+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-07-12T07:52:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-why-london-pride-did-not-infringe-blenders-pride-pernod-ricard-judgment-2025\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":3460,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"Trademark Laws\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Trademark Laws\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-why-london-pride-did-not-infringe-blenders-pride-pernod-ricard-judgment-2025\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-why-london-pride-did-not-infringe-blenders-pride-pernod-ricard-judgment-2025\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-why-london-pride-did-not-infringe-blenders-pride-pernod-ricard-judgment-2025\\\/\",\"name\":\"Supreme Court on Trademark Infringement: Why \\\"London Pride\\\" Did Not Infringe \\\"Blenders Pride\\\" | Pernod Ricard Judgment (2025) - Legal Service India - Articles\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-12T07:46:54+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-07-12T07:52:59+00:00\",\"description\":\"The Supreme Court explains why \\\"London Pride\\\" did not infringe \\\"Blenders Pride\\\" in a landmark 2025 trademark law judgement.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-why-london-pride-did-not-infringe-blenders-pride-pernod-ricard-judgment-2025\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-why-london-pride-did-not-infringe-blenders-pride-pernod-ricard-judgment-2025\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-why-london-pride-did-not-infringe-blenders-pride-pernod-ricard-judgment-2025\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Trademark Laws > Supreme Court Explains Anti-Dissection Rule in Trademark Law: Pernod Ricard vs Karanveer Singh Chhabra (2025)\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/\",\"name\":\"Legal Service India - Law Articles\",\"description\":\"Legal Service India - Law Article Directory is the oldest in India since 2000, with thousands of article written by lawyers, law Students and Scholars on all branches of law\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Legal Service India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/06\\\/logo-circle-1.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/06\\\/logo-circle-1.png\",\"width\":105,\"height\":95,\"caption\":\"Legal Service India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/legalservicesind\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legalserviceind\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.youtube.com\\\/@LegalServiceIndia-lsi\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/96ae33c2330691e5b3ccd88cf127a305\",\"name\":\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"\\\/\\\/www.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm\",\"url\":\"\\\/\\\/www.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm\",\"contentUrl\":\"\\\/\\\/www.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm\",\"caption\":\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\"},\"description\":\"Professional and Literary Profile Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Advocate, is an alumnus of the Campus Law Centre, University of Delhi, with over 20 years of experience in IP litigation before the Delhi High Court. He currently serves as a Patent and Trademark Attorney at United &amp; United, a leading intellectual property law firm. Deeply committed to legal scholarship, he has authored more than 900 articles on intellectual property law, published on major platforms including Legal Service India, Bar &amp; Bench, Live Law, SCC Online Blog, Legal Desire, SpicyIP, among others. Beyond his legal practice, he is also an accomplished writer and poet, with over 1,500 literary works and more than 20 books published in Hindi and English. His journey reflects a unique blend of legal advocacy and creative expression, inspired by a passion for justice, knowledge, and reform.\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/author\\\/ajayamitabhsuman\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Supreme Court on Trademark Infringement: Why \"London Pride\" Did Not Infringe \"Blenders Pride\" | Pernod Ricard Judgment (2025) - Legal Service India - Articles","description":"The Supreme Court explains why \"London Pride\" did not infringe \"Blenders Pride\" in a landmark 2025 trademark law judgement.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-why-london-pride-did-not-infringe-blenders-pride-pernod-ricard-judgment-2025\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Supreme Court on Trademark Infringement: Why \"London Pride\" Did Not Infringe \"Blenders Pride\" | Pernod Ricard Judgment (2025)","og_description":"The Supreme Court explains why \"London Pride\" did not infringe \"Blenders Pride\" in a landmark 2025 trademark law judgement.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-why-london-pride-did-not-infringe-blenders-pride-pernod-ricard-judgment-2025\/","og_site_name":"Legal Service India - Articles","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/legalservicesind","article_published_time":"2026-07-12T07:46:54+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-07-12T07:52:59+00:00","author":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legalserviceind","twitter_site":"@legalserviceind","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-why-london-pride-did-not-infringe-blenders-pride-pernod-ricard-judgment-2025\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-why-london-pride-did-not-infringe-blenders-pride-pernod-ricard-judgment-2025\/"},"author":{"name":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/person\/96ae33c2330691e5b3ccd88cf127a305"},"headline":"Supreme Court on Trademark Infringement: Why &#8220;London Pride&#8221; Did Not Infringe &#8220;Blenders Pride&#8221; | Pernod Ricard Judgment (2025)","datePublished":"2026-07-12T07:46:54+00:00","dateModified":"2026-07-12T07:52:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-why-london-pride-did-not-infringe-blenders-pride-pernod-ricard-judgment-2025\/"},"wordCount":3460,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#organization"},"keywords":["Trademark Laws"],"articleSection":["Trademark Laws"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-why-london-pride-did-not-infringe-blenders-pride-pernod-ricard-judgment-2025\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-why-london-pride-did-not-infringe-blenders-pride-pernod-ricard-judgment-2025\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-why-london-pride-did-not-infringe-blenders-pride-pernod-ricard-judgment-2025\/","name":"Supreme Court on Trademark Infringement: Why \"London Pride\" Did Not Infringe \"Blenders Pride\" | Pernod Ricard Judgment (2025) - Legal Service India - Articles","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-07-12T07:46:54+00:00","dateModified":"2026-07-12T07:52:59+00:00","description":"The Supreme Court explains why \"London Pride\" did not infringe \"Blenders Pride\" in a landmark 2025 trademark law judgement.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-why-london-pride-did-not-infringe-blenders-pride-pernod-ricard-judgment-2025\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-why-london-pride-did-not-infringe-blenders-pride-pernod-ricard-judgment-2025\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-why-london-pride-did-not-infringe-blenders-pride-pernod-ricard-judgment-2025\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Trademark Laws > Supreme Court Explains Anti-Dissection Rule in Trademark Law: Pernod Ricard vs Karanveer Singh Chhabra (2025)"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/","name":"Legal Service India - Law Articles","description":"Legal Service India - Law Article Directory is the oldest in India since 2000, with thousands of article written by lawyers, law Students and Scholars on all branches of law","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#organization","name":"Legal Service India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/logo-circle-1.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/logo-circle-1.png","width":105,"height":95,"caption":"Legal Service India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/legalservicesind","https:\/\/x.com\/legalserviceind","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@LegalServiceIndia-lsi"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/person\/96ae33c2330691e5b3ccd88cf127a305","name":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"\/\/www.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm","url":"\/\/www.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm","contentUrl":"\/\/www.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm","caption":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN"},"description":"Professional and Literary Profile Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Advocate, is an alumnus of the Campus Law Centre, University of Delhi, with over 20 years of experience in IP litigation before the Delhi High Court. He currently serves as a Patent and Trademark Attorney at United &amp; United, a leading intellectual property law firm. Deeply committed to legal scholarship, he has authored more than 900 articles on intellectual property law, published on major platforms including Legal Service India, Bar &amp; Bench, Live Law, SCC Online Blog, Legal Desire, SpicyIP, among others. Beyond his legal practice, he is also an accomplished writer and poet, with over 1,500 literary works and more than 20 books published in Hindi and English. His journey reflects a unique blend of legal advocacy and creative expression, inspired by a passion for justice, knowledge, and reform.","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/author\/ajayamitabhsuman\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27784","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/56"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=27784"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27784\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":27791,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27784\/revisions\/27791"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=27784"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=27784"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=27784"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}