Summary
In the case of Pernod Ricard India Pvt Ltd vs Karanveer Singh Chhabra, the Supreme Court of India considered whether the respondent’s use of the mark “LONDON PRIDE” for whisky prima facie amounted to trademark infringement and passing off. The appellants alleged that the respondent copied elements of their registered marks “BLENDERS PRIDE”, “IMPERIAL BLUE”, and “SEAGRAM’S”, including their packaging, colour scheme, and embossed bottles. After reviewing the arguments and legal framework, the Court declined to grant interim relief, holding that the marks were not deceptively similar and that the term “PRIDE” could not be monopolised.
Trademark Infringement and Passing Off Claims Pernod Ricard India Pvt Ltd (Appelant) is the proprietor of several registered trademarks used for whisky, including “BLENDERS PRIDE”, “IMPERIAL BLUE”, and “SEAGRAM’S”. In 2019, it learned that the respondent was selling whisky under the brand name “LONDON PRIDE”, allegedly using bottles embossed with “SEAGRAM’S” and packaging resembling its products.
Pernod Ricard therefore filed a suit for permanent injunction, alleging infringement, passing off, and unfair competition. They sought an interim injunction before the Commercial Court, which was denied. The High Court upheld the denial. The matter then reached the Supreme Court.
Questions Before the Court
- Whether “LONDON PRIDE” is deceptively similar to “BLENDERS PRIDE”.
- Whether “PRIDE” is a generic or publici juris term.
- Whether the packaging and trade dress used by the respondent imitate that of “IMPERIAL BLUE”.
- Whether the use of embossed “SEAGRAM’S” bottles constitutes infringement.
- Whether the respondent’s use of “LONDON PRIDE” causes initial interest confusion or consumer deception.
Arguments Presented By the Parties
Appellants – Pernod Ricard India Pvt Ltd
- “LONDON PRIDE” copies the dominant element “PRIDE” from “BLENDERS PRIDE”.
- The respondent’s packaging is deceptively similar to “IMPERIAL BLUE”.
- “PRIDE” is not generic in the context of alcoholic beverages.
- Use of embossed bottles with “SEAGRAM’S” is unauthorised.
- Initial interest confusion and average consumer perception support a finding of infringement.
Respondent – Karanveer Singh Chhabra
- “LONDON PRIDE” is distinct and registered under state excise laws.
- The packaging and branding are different in colour, shape, and layout.
- Consumers of whisky are literate and capable of distinguishing brands.
- No evidence of actual confusion or harm has been shown.
- The appellants have no exclusive right to the word “PRIDE”.
Court’s Analysis
Anti-Dissection Rule
The court examined whether it was appropriate to compare only the word “PRIDE” across both marks. It held that the marks must be compared as a whole, not dissected. As per the Court, the term “PRIDE” alone could not form the basis of the comparison.
Publici Juris
The court stated that the appellants did not claim exclusive rights over “PRIDE” in isolation. It found that “PRIDE” was used by other traders and had not acquired secondary meaning in association with the Appellant.
Initial Interest Confusion
The court considered the possibility of consumers being initially misled but found no evidence to support such confusion. It held that any initial resemblance did not lead to consumer deception, especially given the packaging differences.
Average Consumer Test
The court applied the standard of an average consumer with imperfect recollection and held that such a consumer would not likely confuse “LONDON PRIDE” with “BLENDERS PRIDE” or associate the packaging with “IMPERIAL BLUE”.
Use of Embossed Bottles and Trade Dress
The court took note of the allegation that the respondent used bottles bearing the appellants’ embossed trademark. However, it found no conclusive evidence of continued use and held that the packaging and trade dress were not deceptively similar.
Findings
- The marks “BLENDERS PRIDE” and “LONDON PRIDE” are not deceptively similar .
- “PRIDE” is a non-distinctive term in the trade.
- The appellants did not establish a prima facie case for interim injunction.
- The packaging and trade dress used by the respondent are not confusingly similar.
- No infringement has been made out in respect of embossed bottles.
Case Citation
Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd. v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra, Civil Appeal No. 10638 of 2025 (India).
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/179600311/ (Visited on 21 August 2025)
Disclaimer
This case blog is based on the author’s understanding of the judgment. Understandings and opinions of others may differ. An AI application was used to generate parts of this case blog.
