LexPERNOD RICARD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ANOTHER versus KARANVEER SINGH CHHABRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 805 : 2025 INSC 981 Pernod Ricard India Private Limited & Another v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra (Civil Appeal No. 10638 of 2025) 14 August 2025 [J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Appellants, engaged in the manufacture and distribution of wines, liquors, and spirits, sell whisky under the brand names ‘BLENDERS PRIDE’ and ‘IMPERIAL BLUE’, both of which are registered trademarks. The appellants also hold a registered trademark for ‘SEAGRAM’S’, which serves as the house mark of Appellant No.1, and is used both in India and internationally across various product lines. Respondent was marketing whisky under the mark ‘LONDON PRIDE. The issue was whether the appellants were entitled to grant of interim injunction restraining the respondent from using the impugned trademark, get-up, and trade dress including the packaging of ‘LONDON PRIDE’ on the ground that such use amounted to infringement and/or imitation of the appellants’ registered trademarks, namely, ‘BLENDERS PRIDE’, ‘IMPERIAL BLUE’, and ‘SEAGRAM’S’. Headnotes† Trademark – ‘Infringement’ and ‘Passing Off’ – Appellants sought interim injunction restraining the respondent from using the impugned trademark, get-up, and trade dress including the packaging of ‘LONDON PRIDE’ on the ground that such use amounted to infringement and/or imitation of the appellants’ registered trademarks, namely, ‘BLENDERS PRIDE’, ‘IMPERIAL BLUE’, and ‘SEAGRAM’S’ – Commercial Court dismissed the interim injunction application – High Court denied relief – Correctness: Held: 1.1. It is a settled principle of trademark law that deceptive similarity does not necessitate exact imitation – What is material is the likelihood of confusion or association in the minds of consumers arising from an overall resemblance between the competing marks – The applicable standard is that of an average consumer with * Author 806 [2025] 8 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports imperfect recollection – While comparing rival marks, Courts must assess the marks in their entirety, rather than dissecting composite trademarks into isolated components – The dominant feature of a mark may assist in crossing the preliminary threshold of analysis, but the ultimate inquiry must focus on the overall impression created by the mark, especially in the context of the relevant goods, trade channels, and target consumers – The proper test is not to place the two marks side by side to identify dissimilarities, but to determine whether the impugned mark, when viewed independently, is likely to create an impression of association or common origin in the mind of the average consumer – Even if a particular component of a mark lacks inherent distinctiveness, its imitation may still amount to infringement if it constitutes an essential and distinctive feature of the composite mark as a whole. [Paras 41, 42] 1.2. Applying the settled legal standards, including the anti- dissection rule, the overall similarity test, and the perspective of an average consumer, prima facie there is no deceptive similarity between the competing marks that would give rise to confusion. [Para 44] 2.1. The appellants’ attempt to isolate the word ‘PRIDE’ as the basis of comparison is legally untenable – Trademark similarity must be assessed by considering the mark as a whole, and not by extracting a single component for comparison – When viewed in their entirety, the appellants’ marks – ‘BLENDERS PRIDE’, ‘IMPERIAL BLUE’, and ‘SEAGRAM’S’ are structurally, phonetically, and visually distinct from the respondent’s mark ‘LONDON PRIDE’ – The mere presence of the common word ‘PRIDE’ which is a generic and laudatory term, does not render the competing marks deceptively similar in the absence of an overall resemblance – Thus, under the anti-dissection rule, no case for infringement or passing off is made out – Upon a holistic comparison, the overall commercial impression of ‘LONDON PRIDE’ is substantially different from either of the appellants’ marks – The trade dress, label design, colour scheme, typography, and brand presentation are all distinctive and unrelated – Moreover, the term ‘LONDON’ introduces a geographical identifier that conveys a distinct brand identity, divergent from ‘BLENDERS’ or ‘IMPERIAL’ – The respondent’s mark, therefore, does not imitate the dominant features of the appellants’ marks – It is evident that the marks ‘BLENDERS PRIDE’ and ‘LONDON PRIDE’ are vi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.