Premium Whisky Consumers Won’t Confuse Blenders Pride With London Pride | Pernod Ricard Plea Rejected | Supreme Court Dismisses Pernod Ricard Appeal
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan held that the appeal arising from an order refusing interim injunction was not maintainable on merits and dismissed it. The Bench directed the Commercial Court to proceed with the trial and dispose of the suit on merits in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations made by the Supreme Court or the courts below, within a period of four months from receipt of the judgment. The Court further recorded that the decision is confined to adjudication of the interlocutory application for interim injunction and that there shall be no order as to costs; all pending applications stand closed.
The litigation arises out of a dispute concerning competing trademarks used for whisky and related alcoholic beverages. The appellants asserted that they are engaged in the manufacture and distribution of wines, liquors, and spirits, and that they sell whisky under the brand names “BLENDERS PRIDE” and “IMPERIAL BLUE,” both registered trademarks. They also averred that “SEAGRAM’S” is a registered house mark used across product lines in India and internationally.
As to the chronology of registrations and use, the judgment records that on 05.02.1945, the appellants’ predecessor, Seagram Company Limited, obtained registration of the trademark SEAGRAM’S (Registration No. 105507, Class 33, “Whisky”). On 25.03.1994, registration for “BLENDERS PRIDE” was obtained (Registration No. 623365, Class 33, “Wines, Spirits and Liqueurs”), the mark having been coined and adopted by the appellants’ predecessor and in extensive worldwide use since 1973 for whisky products.
The judgment further records that “BLENDERS PRIDE” whisky was launched in India in 1995, with an annual turnover exceeding INR 1,700 crores for FY 2019–20; that the appellants launched “IMPERIAL BLUE” in India in 1997; and that device registrations for IMPERIAL BLUE (Nos. 3296387 and 3327621, Class 33) were secured in 2016. The brand “IMPERIAL BLUE” is recorded to have achieved an annual turnover exceeding INR 2,700 crores for FY 2018–19.
According to the appellants’ pleadings noted in the judgment, they became aware in May 2019 that the respondent had been marketing whisky under the mark “LONDON PRIDE.” They alleged that the respondent’s branding was both phonetically and visually similar to “BLENDERS PRIDE,” and that it copied the colour combination, get-up and trade dress of “IMPERIAL BLUE,” while also using “SEAGRAM’S” embossed bottles for the respondent’s product. These acts, the appellants contended, amounted to infringement of their registered trademarks, passing off, and other wrongs.
The appellants instituted Civil Suit No. 3 of 2020 before the Commercial Court, seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining the respondent from trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright violation, along with other consequential reliefs. They also filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking an interim injunction. The relief sought in the interlocutory application included an order restraining the respondent and connected persons from manufacturing, selling, or otherwise dealing in beverages under “LONDON PRIDE” or any mark/label/packaging identical or deceptively similar to “IMPERIAL BLUE” label or packaging and/or deceptively similar to the trademarks “BLENDERS PRIDE” and/or “SEAGRAM’S,” amounting to infringement, copyright violation, passing off, or unfair competition. The application also sought an ex parte ad interim injunction on similar terms.
By order dated 26.11.2020, the Commercial Court dismissed the interim injunction application. The appellants carried the matter in appeal (Misc. Appeal No. 232 of 2021) to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore; the High Court dismissed the appeal by judgment dated 03.11.2023, impugned in the present proceedings.
The judgment sets out, at length, the appellants’ submissions on infringement and passing off, including assertions of “injurious association” and “initial interest confusion,” and their contention that the High Court failed to apply the correct test of deceptive similarity as laid down in precedents. The appellants contended that their marks have been in continuous and extensive use for over three decades, enjoy substantial goodwill, and that they had established a prima facie case of both infringement and passing off warranting interim injunctive relief.
Per contra, the judgment records the respondent’s submissions that the respondent is the proprietor of the trademark “LONDON PRIDE” and associated intellectual property, that the brand is marketed in Madhya Pradesh and is registered with the Excise Department, that “LONDON PRIDE” is dissimilar in name, appearance, and composition from any of the appellants’ marks, and that there exists no visual, phonetic, or structural similarity. It is also recorded that the respondent did not dispute certain factual assertions concerning the appellants’ trademarks, their registration status, and usage, while maintaining that the appellants lacked a prima facie case and that the elements of irreparable harm and balance of convenience were not in their favor.
The Supreme Court’s judgment catalogues the statutory framework and legal principles governing interim injunctions in trademark matters, including the criteria typically applied under the approach associated with American Cyanamid Co. v. Ethicon Ltd., such as triable issue, likelihood of confusion or deception, balance of convenience, irreparable harm, and public interest. It notes that these considerations operate cumulatively and that the absence of any one of them may warrant declining relief at the interlocutory stage.
Ultimately, the Court’s analysis addresses the competing marks “BLENDERS PRIDE” and “LONDON PRIDE,” the trade dress and packaging, and the use of generic components such as the laudatory word “PRIDE,” recording findings on distinctiveness and the perspective of an average consumer with imperfect recollection. The Court also notes earlier unsuccessful proceedings involving the exclusive use of the word “PRIDE,” as recorded in another matter, in the context of assessing the appellants’ present claims at the interim stage.
The Court observed: “Applying the settled legal standards – including the anti-dissection rule, the overall similarity test, and the perspective of an average consumer – we prima facie find no deceptive similarity between the competing marks that would give rise to confusion.”
The Court stated: “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 recorded: “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.”
On the appellants’ reliance on component parts of composite marks, the Court observed: “Though the appellants heavily rely on the anti-dissection principle, they themselves seek to dissect their composite marks and claim exclusive rights over isolated elements such as ‘PRIDE’ and the use of the colour blue. Their claim, in essence, appears to be based on brand association with the Seagram’s or Pernod Richard portfolio, rather than any legally cognizable infringement.”
On specific evidentiary allegations, the Court stated: “The allegation regarding the embossing of ‘Seagram Quality’ on the respondent’s bottle was rightly rejected by the Commercial Court. The bottle produced as evidence by the appellants lacked such embossing, and this finding remains unchallenged. The appellants themselves admitted that they failed to furnish any invoice or produce a witness to support their claim, thereby rendering the allegation unreliable and lacking in bona fides.”
The Court recorded the context of consumer perception: “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.”
On the appellants’ pleadings, the Court stated: “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’s summary of the settled legal position at the interim stage was recorded as follows: “The grant of an interim injunction in trademark matters requires the court to consider multiple interrelated factors: prima facie case, likelihood of confusion, relative merits of the parties’ claims, balance of convenience, risk of irreparable harm, and the public interest. These considerations operate cumulatively, and the absence of any one of these may be sufficient to decline interim relief.”
The judgment also recorded the prior proceedings involving the appellants concerning the word “PRIDE”: “Significantly, the appellants’ earlier challenge to United Spirits’ use of the term ‘PRIDE’ in the mark ‘Royal Challenger American Pride’ was unsuccessful. The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the appellants did not possess an independent registration for the word ‘Pride’, but only for the composite mark ‘Blenders Pride’. Accordingly, they could not claim any exclusive or enforceable rights over the standalone word ‘Pride’. The Court further observed that having failed to object to the registration of the impugned mark before the Trade Marks Registry, the appellants were estopped from asserting such rights subsequently. This decision was upheld by this Court in SLP (C) No. 17674/2023 dismissed on 06.09.2023.”
Consequently, the Court stated: “In view of the foregoing analysis, we find no ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Commercial Court and the High Court. The appellants have failed to establish a prima facie case of deceptive similarity that could justify the grant of interim injunction.”
In the dispositive portion of the judgment, the Court stated: “In fine, the appeal fails and is dismissed.” This direction conclusively determines the appeal at the interlocutory stage against the appellants.
The Bench further directed: “The Commercial Court is directed to proceed with the trial and dispose of the suit on merits, in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations made by this court or by the courts below, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.” This instruction fixes a time-bound schedule for trial completion and mandates that findings be reached independently of observations recorded at the interim stage.
The Court also clarified the scope of its ruling by recording: “It is clarified that the present judgment is confined to the adjudication of the application for interim injunction, based solely on the materials available at this interlocutory stage.”
On costs, the Court ordered: “There shall be no order as to costs.” This directive disposes of the parties’ cost claims arising out of the appeal.
Lastly, the Court recorded: “All pending application(s), if any, stand closed.” This brings to an end all collateral interlocutory applications associated with the appeal.
Advocates Representing the Parties
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.
Case Title: Pernod Ricard India Private Limited & Another v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 981
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 10638 of 2025 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 28489 of 2023]
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala; Justice R. Mahadevan
