Trademark Infringement and Passing Off Claims Pernod Ricard India Pvt Ltd (Appelant) is the proprietor of several registered trademarks used for whisky, including \u201cBLENDERS PRIDE\u201d, \u201cIMPERIAL BLUE\u201d, and \u201cSEAGRAM\u2019S\u201d. In 2019, it learned that the respondent was selling whisky under the brand name \u201cLONDON PRIDE\u201d, allegedly using bottles embossed with \u201cSEAGRAM\u2019S\u201d and packaging resembling its products.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
The court examined whether it was appropriate to compare only the word \u201cPRIDE\u201d across both marks. It held that the marks must be compared as a whole, not dissected. As per the Court, the term \u201cPRIDE\u201d alone could not form the basis of the comparison.<\/p>\n
The court stated that the appellants did not claim exclusive rights over \u201cPRIDE\u201d in isolation. It found that \u201cPRIDE\u201d was used by other traders and had not acquired secondary meaning in association with the Appellant.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
The court applied the standard of an average consumer with imperfect recollection and held that such a consumer would not likely confuse \u201cLONDON PRIDE\u201d with \u201cBLENDERS PRIDE\u201d or associate the packaging with \u201cIMPERIAL BLUE\u201d.<\/p>\n
The court took note of the allegation that the respondent used bottles bearing the appellants\u2019 embossed trademark. However, it found no conclusive evidence of continued use and held that the packaging and trade dress were not deceptively similar.<\/p>\n