Facts Of The Case:
The appellants, Pernod Ricard India Private Limited, are manufacturers and distributors of alcoholic beverages, holding registered trademarks for ‘BLENDERS PRIDE’, ‘IMPERIAL BLUE’, and ‘SEAGRAM’S’ whiskies. They filed a suit against the respondent, Karanveer Singh Chhabra, alleging that his use of the mark ‘LONDON PRIDE’ for whisky, along with its packaging and trade dress, constituted trademark infringement and passing off. The appellants contended that the respondent’s mark was deceptively similar to their own, copying phonetic, visual, and structural elements, including the colour scheme and bottle design. They sought a permanent injunction and subsequently applied for an interim injunction. Both the Commercial Court and the High Court rejected the interim injunction application, finding no deceptive similarity upon a holistic comparison of the marks and packaging. The courts held the word ‘PRIDE’ was common to the trade and that the dominant features of the marks were distinct, with no likelihood of confusion among consumers. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court against the refusal of interim relief.
Procedural History:
The appellants (Pernod Ricard) instituted a civil suit for infringement and passing off before the Commercial Court, Indore, along with an application for interim injunction. The Commercial Court dismissed the interim injunction application on 26.11.2020. The appellants then filed Misc. Appeal No. 232 of 2021 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, which was dismissed, upholding the Commercial Court’s order on 03.11.2023. The appellants subsequently filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP (C) No. 28489 of 2023) before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted leave and, after hearing the appeal, dismissed it on 14.08.2025, affirming the findings of the courts below and directing the Commercial Court to expedite the final disposal of the main suit.
READ ALSO:Husband’s Second Marriage Leads Supreme Court to Use Special Power for Divorce
Court Observation:
The Court observed that the fundamental test for deceptive similarity requires a holistic comparison of the competing marks from the perspective of an average consumer with imperfect recollection, rather than a dissected, side-by-side analysis. It found the word “PRIDE” to be a common, laudatory term, publici juris, and incapable of exclusive appropriation, with no evidence of acquired distinctiveness. The dominant features of the marks—”BLENDERS,” “IMPERIAL BLUE,” and “LONDON”—were held to be entirely distinct, creating different overall commercial impressions. The Court further noted that the specific trade dress, packaging, and target consumers of premium whisky reduced any likelihood of confusion, and the appellants’ attempt to combine elements from different marks to claim infringement was legally untenable.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the concurrent findings of the lower courts that refused to grant an interim injunction. The Court ruled that the appellants failed to establish a prima facie case of deceptive similarity, as the rival marks, when compared in their entirety, were not deceptively similar and no likelihood of confusion existed. The use of the common, descriptive term “PRIDE” was not an infringement, and the overall get-up, packaging, and dominant elements of the marks were distinct. The Commercial Court was directed to expedite the final disposal of the main suit within four months, uninfluenced by any observations made in the interlocutory proceedings. There was no order as to costs.
Case Details:
Case Title: Pernod Ricard India Private Limited & Anr. vs. Karanveer Singh Chhabra Citation: 2025 INSC 981 Appeal Number: Civil Appeal No. 10638 of 2025 Date of Judgement: August 14, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
Download The Judgement Here