Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court on Thursday (Aug. 14) dismissed the interim injunction plea of Pernod Ricard against the alleged infringement of its registered Whisky marks “BLENDERS PRIDE” and “IMPERIAL BLUE” by a country-made Whisky brand “LONDON PRIDE”.

The bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan noted that the brands in question are premium and ultra-premium whiskies aimed at a discerning consumer base, whose purchase decisions are made with greater care and are unlikely to be swayed by trade dress. Accordingly, the Court found no deceptive similarity between the competing marks that could lead to confusion.

The Court was deciding the appeal filed by Pernod Ricard challenging the orders of the Indore Commercial Court and the Madhya Pradesh High Court which rejected its interim injunction applications against the respondent. The appellant contended that the respondent used the similar name as "Blenders Pride" and used the similar styling of "Imperial Blue" for "London Pride".

Dismissing the appeal, the Court observed :

“In the present case, the marks – 'BLENDERS PRIDE' and 'LONDON PRIDE' – are clearly not identical. Though the products are similar, the branding, packaging, and trade dress of each are materially distinct. The Commercial Court and High Court have rightly held that the term 'PRIDE' is publici juris, and commonly used in the liquor industry. The dominant components – 'BLENDERS', 'IMPERIAL BLUE', and 'LONDON' – are entirely different both visually and phonetically, producing distinct overall impressions.”

The Court reiterated that a deceptive similarity does not necessitate exact imitation. “What is material is the likelihood of confusion or association in the minds of consumers arising from an overall resemblance between the competing marks. The applicable standard is that of an average consumer with imperfect recollection.”, the Court said.

“The proper test is not to place the two marks side by side to identify dissimilarities, but to determine whether the impugned mark, when viewed independently, is likely to create an impression of association or common origin in the mind of the average consumer. Even if a particular component of a mark lacks inherent distinctiveness, its imitation may still amount to infringement if it constitutes an essential and distinctive feature of the composite mark as a whole.”, the Court added.

For better understanding, although the judgment authored by Justice Mahadevan reproduced the marks for comparison:

The Court found the Appellant's allegations of counterfeiting to be speculative, unsupported by credible evidence.

“In the liquor industry, where advertising is highly restricted, brand recognition rests predominantly on packaging and consumer loyalty. Unless the imitation is deliberate and intended to mislead, the chance of confusion is minimal. The allegation of counterfeiting in the present case appears to be speculative and unsupported by credible evidence.”, the Court said.

“The appellants' attempt to combine elements from two distinct marks – 'BLENDERS PRIDE' and 'IMPERIAL BLUE' – to challenge the respondent's mark 'LONDON PRIDE', constitutes a hybrid and untenable pleading. Each mark must be assessed independently, and cherry-picking generic or unregistered features from multiple marks to fabricate a composite case of infringement is not legally sustainable.”, the court added.

"The piece-meal approach adopted by the appellants – seeking to combine unrelated features from their own marks – has undermined their claim. Apart from the shared use of a common term, there is no meaningful similarity between the marks. Key elements such as packaging, typography, bottle design, and label layout are materially distinct. In a market segment, where consumers are more discerning, the likelihood of confusion is negligible.", the Court further observed.

The Court endorsed the reasoning of the MP High Court that the consumers in the premium whiskey segment are more discerning and are unlikely to be confused .

"The courts below also correctly observed that the products in question are premium and ultra-premium whiskies, targeted at a discerning consumer base. Such consumers are likely to exercise greater care in their purchase decisions. The distinct trade dress and packaging reduce any likelihood of confusion. The shared use of the laudatory word 'PRIDE', in isolation, cannot form the basis for injunctive relief."

The Court however clarified that its observations are only for the adjudication of the interim injunction application solely based on the materials available at the interlocutory stage. The trial in the Commercial Suit shall proceed independently, the Court said.

Cause Title: PERNOD RICARD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ANOTHER VERSUS KARANVEER SINGH CHHABRA

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 803

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Hemant Singh, Adv. Ms. Mamta Jha, Adv. Mr. Mohit D. Ram, AOR Mr. Sambhav Jain, Adv. Mr. Akhil Saxena, Adv. Ms. Reha Mohan, Adv. Mr. Rajul Shrivastav, Adv. Ms. Monisha Handa, Adv. Mr. Anubhav Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sidhant Oberoi, Adv. Ms. Akanksha Majumdar, Adv. Ms. Nayan Gupta, Adv. Mr. Sabir Kachhi, Adv. Ms. Pritha Suri, Adv. Ms. Ira Mahajan, Adv. Ms. Tabeer Riyaz, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shyam Devan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Abhimanyu Bhandari, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Mishra, Adv. Mr. Ekansh Mishra, AOR Mr. Ayush Jain, Adv. Mr. Roungan Chowdhury, Adv. Mr. Shubham Tiwari, Adv.