On 14 August 2025, the Supreme Court of India ruled that isolated similarity is insufficient to establish trademark infringement, dismissing an appeal in Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd. v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra. The judgment upheld earlier decisions of the Commercial Court and the High Court, which had refused interim injunctions in favour of Pernod Ricard.
The Appellants, Pernod Ricard, own the registered trademarks "Blenders Pride", "Imperial Blue", and their house mark "Seagram's". The Respondent markets whisky under the brand "London Pride". Pernod Ricard alleged that the impugned mark was deceptively similar to "Blenders Pride", that it copied the colour palette, label shape and bottle design of "Imperial Blue", and that bottles embossed with "Seagram's Quality" had been used.
Explore More: IP law firm
The Supreme Court rejected these contentions and outlined its reasoning as follows:
- Anti-Dissection Rule: Rival marks must be compared as a whole. Viewed holistically, "Blenders Pride" and "London Pride" were found sufficiently dissimilar, and therefore not confusingly alike.
- Dominant-Feature Guideline: Applying the "milk-and-water" analogy, the Court held that consumer perception is shaped by the dominant part of a composite mark. Words such as "Blenders" and "Imperial" were distinctive and dominant, whereas "Pride" and "Blue" were common, descriptive or generic within the liquor industry. Other brands like "Rockford Pride", "Royal Pride" and "Oak Pride" illustrated this shared usage.
- Addition of a geographical identifier: The court also observed that the term 'LONDON' introduces a geographical identifier that conveys a distinct brand identity, divergent from 'BLENDERS' or 'IMPERIAL'.
- Generic, Ordinary and Laudatory Terms: The Court emphasised that "Pride", being laudatory, cannot be monopolised unless proven to have acquired secondary meaning through long, exclusive use. The Appellants failed to establish such distinctiveness.
- Premium-Whisky Consumers: Since both products cater to premium buyers, the Court noted that such consumers are reasonably discerning. Even accounting for imperfect recollection, they were unlikely to be misled by the competing marks.
- Seagram's Quality Embossing: The claim that bottles were embossed with "Seagram's Quality" was dismissed, as the bottle produced in Court bore no such mark.
The Court concluded that the Appellants had failed to make out a prima facie case, nor did the balance of convenience favour them.
This ruling reinforces two central principles of trademark law: protection is confined to distinctive source identifiers, and generic or laudatory terms cannot be monopolised. By refusing to extend protection over commonplace elements, the Court reiterated that trademark law does not safeguard descriptive praise or fashionable design choices, but only distinct indicators of origin.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
