Battle of the Prides: SC Rules in Favour

of "London Pride"

The Supreme Court of India, in Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra, has delivered a significant ruling on the law of trademark infringement and passing off, reinforcing the primacy of the consumer’s perspective in favour of our client, Karanveer Singh Chhabra. This judgment is an important reference point for understanding how courts assess deceptive similarity, especially in cases involving composite marks, brand reputation, and trade dress. Our team is proud to have facilitated the critical intellectual property registrations for our client that laid the foundation for this win.

Factual Matrix

The dispute arose when the appellants, proprietors of well-known whisky brands Blenders Pride, Imperial Blue, and Seagram’s, alleged that Mr. Chhabra’s brand London Pride infringed their registered trademarks and trade dress.

The appellants contended that:

• London Pride was phonetically and structurally similar to Blenders Pride.

• The packaging adopted by the Respondent was allegedly imitated the Imperial Blue colour scheme, layout, and get-up.

• Bottles embossed with Seagram’s mono were allegedly being used by the Respondent.

Both the Commercial Court, Indore, and the Madhya Pradesh High Court refused interim injunctions sought by the appellants. The matter reached the Supreme Court in appeal.

Issues before the Court

The Supreme Court had to determine whether the appellants were entitled to an interim injunction restraining the respondent from using the mark London Pride and its packaging on the grounds of trademark infringement, passing off, and trade dress imitation. The primary issues before the Court were:

• Whether the appellants were entitled to an interim injunction restraining the respondent from using the ‘LONDON PRIDE’ trademark, packaging, and trade dress.

• Whether such use amounted to infringement or passing off against the backdrop of the appellants’ registered trademarks.

• What constitutes deceptive similarity, especially from the perspective of an average consumer with imperfect recollection.

Court’s Analysis of Previous Judgments on Deceptive Similarity

The Court extensively reviewed domestic and international precedents, including:

• Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satya Deo Gupta: Emphasising the “overall similarity” test and rejecting mechanical, side-by-side comparisons.

• Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navaratna Pharma Labs: Distinguishing infringement from passing off and stressing the importance of essential features.

• Parle Products v. J.P. & Co: Recognising that even subtle similarities in get-up can mislead consumers with imperfect recollection.

• Corn Products v. Shangrila Food Products: Holding that phonetic similarity can suffice for a finding of deception.

• Cadila Health Care v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals: Highlighting that consumer safety and association risks warrant stricter scrutiny in certain product categories.

The Court also discussed the “anti-dissection rule,” rejecting the tendency to isolate common elements like ‘PRIDE’ in composite marks, and highlighted the necessity of consumer-focused analysis i.e. visual, phonetic, and conceptual.

Detailed Analysis and Findings of the Court

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the touchstone for deceptive similarity is the perception of the average consumer, who is neither overly cautious nor unduly negligent, and who relies on imperfect recollection. The court observed the following:

• Trademark as a whole: The Court held that marks must be compared in their entirety, not by isolating or dissecting common elements, upholding the anti-dissection principle.

• Dominant Features Test: While courts may identify “dominant features,” the ultimate test remains holistic, focusing on the overall impression.

• No monopoly over common terms: The word ‘PRIDE’, being generic and laudatory within the whisky industry, cannot be monopolized unless it acquires distinctiveness through secondary meaning, a threshold not met by the appellants.

• Consumer Perspective: For premium whisky brands, where purchasers are presumed discerning and literate, the likelihood of confusion is minimal even with some overlaps in packaging aesthetics.

• No actionable similarity or misrepresentation: Evaluating all elements, i.e. the labels, box colors, bottle shapes, typography, the Court found no material similarity capable of misleading the average consumer.

• Scope of injunctive relief: Citing equitable principles and public interest, the Court affirmed that interim relief requires a strong prima facie case, likelihood of confusion, and balance of convenience, none met by the appellants in this instance.

• Efficient judicial administration: Echoing UK developments, notably the post-sale confusion doctrine, the Court called for timely adjudication in IP matters and cautioned against piecemeal litigation focused solely on interim orders.

Conclusion

This Supreme Court judgment is a seminal moment for Indian trademark law, reaffirming the importance of a consumer-centric approach in assessing deceptive similarity. By dismissing the appeal and denying interim injunction, the Court underscored the need for holistic analysis of trademarks and a refusal to grant exclusivity over generic or descriptive elements without compelling evidence of distinctiveness.

We congratulate our client, Mr. Karanveer Singh Chhabra, on this landmark victory before the Supreme Court of India. The decision not only secures his brand identity but also adds a valuable chapter to Indian trademark jurisprudence

As intellectual property attorneys, we take pride in having played a foundational role in protecting and registering his marks, a reminder that robust IP strategies are indispensable for long-term brand security.

This article has been authored by Siddharth Soni, Associate at Intellect Goodwill LLP. The views expressed in this article are for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice. The content reflects the personal analysis of the author and not necessarily the views of Intellect Goodwill LLP.