{"id":4953,"date":"2025-06-16T10:10:23","date_gmt":"2025-06-16T10:10:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=4953"},"modified":"2025-10-12T12:19:16","modified_gmt":"2025-10-12T12:19:16","slug":"khoday-distilleries-vs-scotch-whisky-association-trademark-case","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/khoday-distilleries-vs-scotch-whisky-association-trademark-case\/","title":{"rendered":"Delay, Acquiescence, And Waiver Can Bar Trademark Rectification Proceedings"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Khoday_Distilleries_Limited_vs_The_Scotch_Whisky_Association\"><\/span>Khoday Distilleries Limited vs. The Scotch Whisky Association<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Date of Judgment:<\/strong> May 27, 2008<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_82_2 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\/khoday-distilleries-vs-scotch-whisky-association-trademark-case\/#Khoday_Distilleries_Limited_vs_The_Scotch_Whisky_Association\" >Khoday Distilleries Limited vs. The Scotch Whisky Association<\/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\/khoday-distilleries-vs-scotch-whisky-association-trademark-case\/#Introduction\" >Introduction<\/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\/khoday-distilleries-vs-scotch-whisky-association-trademark-case\/#Detailed_Factual_Background\" >Detailed Factual Background<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/khoday-distilleries-vs-scotch-whisky-association-trademark-case\/#Detailed_Procedural_Background\" >Detailed Procedural Background<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/khoday-distilleries-vs-scotch-whisky-association-trademark-case\/#Issues_Involved_in_the_Case\" >Issues Involved in the Case<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/khoday-distilleries-vs-scotch-whisky-association-trademark-case\/#Detailed_Submission_of_Parties\" >Detailed Submission of Parties<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/khoday-distilleries-vs-scotch-whisky-association-trademark-case\/#Judgments_Cited_by_Parties_and_Their_Context\" >Judgments Cited by Parties and Their Context<\/a><\/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\/khoday-distilleries-vs-scotch-whisky-association-trademark-case\/#Detailed_Reasoning_and_Analysis_of_Judge\" >Detailed Reasoning and Analysis of Judge<\/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\/khoday-distilleries-vs-scotch-whisky-association-trademark-case\/#Final_Decision\" >Final Decision<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-10\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/khoday-distilleries-vs-scotch-whisky-association-trademark-case\/#Law_Settled_in_This_Case\" >Law Settled in This Case<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Appeal:<\/strong> Appeal (Civil) 4179 of 2008<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Citation:<\/strong> AIR 2008 Supreme Court 2737<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Court:<\/strong> Supreme Court of India<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Hon&#8217;ble Judges:<\/strong> Shri S.B. Sinha and Shri Lokeshwar Singh Panta<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 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>In the annals of trademark law, few cases weave a narrative as intricate and compelling as Khoday Distilleries Limited vs. The Scotch Whisky Association&#8230;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Detailed_Factual_Background\"><\/span>Detailed Factual Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Khoday Distilleries Limited, now known as Khoday India Limited, embarked on its whisky-making journey in May 1968&#8230;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Detailed_Procedural_Background\"><\/span>Detailed Procedural Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The procedural journey began with Khoday\u2019s trademark registration application, accepted and advertised in the early 1970s&#8230;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Issues_Involved_in_the_Case\"><\/span>Issues Involved in the Case<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The Supreme Court distilled two principal issues:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Whether the SWA\u2019s delay in filing the rectification application amounted to acquiescence or waiver, barring their claim?<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Whether the Registrar and High Court applied the correct legal tests in assessing deception and confusion under Section 11 of the Act?<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Detailed_Submission_of_Parties\"><\/span>Detailed Submission of Parties<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Khoday mounted a robust defense. They argued that the SWA, aware of Peter Scot since 1974, waited 12 years until 1986 to act&#8230;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Judgments_Cited_by_Parties_and_Their_Context\"><\/span>Judgments Cited by Parties and Their Context<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>Mohan Meakin Breweries Ltd. vs. The Scotch Whisky Association:<\/strong> Cited by the SWA, emphasized consumer protection.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Scotch Whisky Association &amp; Ors. vs. Golden Bottling Ltd.:<\/strong> Upheld rectification of &#8220;Red Scot.&#8221;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Srilab Breweries Pvt. Ltd. vs. Scotch Whisky Association:<\/strong> Barred Scottish-evoking marks.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>William Grant &amp; Sons Ltd. vs. McDowell &amp; Co. Ltd.:<\/strong> Protected &#8220;Glenfiddich.&#8221;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Ciba Ltd. Basle Switzerland vs. M. Ramalingam:<\/strong> Argued delay could bar rectification.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Bhailal Bhai:<\/strong> Suggested 3-year limitation analogy.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Sakur vs. Tanaji:<\/strong> Argued Limitation Act&#8217;s inapplicability.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Power Control Appliances vs. Sumeet Research and Holdings:<\/strong> Defined acquiescence as active consent.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Ramdev Food Products (P) Ltd. vs. Arvindbhai Rambhai Patel:<\/strong> Reinforced delay as prejudice.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Bollinger vs. Costa Brava Wine Coy. Ld.:<\/strong> SWA used this to support deception claims.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Warnick (Erven) vs. J. Townend &amp; Sons (Hull) Ltd.:<\/strong> Extended deception to whisky.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Scotch Whisky Association vs. Marton De Witt (Australia):<\/strong> Argued discerning buyers wouldn\u2019t be misled.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Cooper Engineering Co. Pty. Ltd. vs. Sigmund Pumps Ltd.:<\/strong> Referenced suffix differences negating confusion.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Application of E.I. DuPont DeNemours &amp; Co.:<\/strong> Emphasized buyer sophistication.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Scotch Whisky Association vs. Majestic Distilling Company:<\/strong> &#8220;Black Watch&#8221; not deceptive.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Detailed_Reasoning_and_Analysis_of_Judge\"><\/span>Detailed Reasoning and Analysis of Judge<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>On the delay issue, the court rejected the SWA\u2019s claim that rectification proceedings were immune to equitable defenses&#8230;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Final_Decision\"><\/span>Final Decision<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The Supreme Court allowed Khoday\u2019s appeal, set aside the High Court\u2019s judgment, and restored the Peter Scot trademark, ruling no costs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Law_Settled_in_This_Case\"><\/span>Law Settled in This Case<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ol class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Delay, acquiescence, and waiver can bar trademark rectification when they prejudice the registrant and public interest doesn\u2019t outweigh equity.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Deception under Section 11 requires a nuanced test considering buyer class, label as a whole, and actual confusion evidence.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The Registrar\u2019s discretion must balance statutory objectives with equitable principles.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Disclaimer:<\/strong> The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Written By:&nbsp;Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman,<\/strong>IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney] ,High Court of Delhi<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Khoday Distilleries Limited vs. The Scotch Whisky Association Date of Judgment: May 27, 2008 Appeal: Appeal (Civil) 4179 of 2008 Citation: AIR 2008 Supreme Court 2737 Court: Supreme Court of India Hon&#8217;ble Judges: Shri S.B. Sinha and Shri Lokeshwar Singh Panta Introduction In the annals of trademark law, few cases weave a narrative as intricate<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":56,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","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,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[20,21],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-4953","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-company-law","7":"category-intellectual-property"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4953","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=4953"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4953\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4953"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4953"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4953"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}