The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected liquor major Pernod Ricard India's plea to block the sale of " London Pride" whisky, saying the brand name and packaging were not deceptively similar to its own flagship labels, " Blenders Pride" and " Imperial Blue."
A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan upheld decisions of the Madhya Pradesh High Court and the Indore Commercial Court which refused to grant the French-owned spirits company an interim injunction against Indore-based manufacturer Karanveer Singh Chhabra.
The issue was whether Pernod Ricard India was entitled to an order restraining Chhabra from using the impugned trademark, get-up, and trade dress, including the packaging of 'LONDON PRIDE' on the ground that such use amounts to infringement its registered trademarks, such as " 'BLENDERS PRIDE', 'IMPERIAL BLUE', and 'SEAGRAM'S".
"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 imperfect recollection," it said.
Applying the settled legal standards, including the anti-dissection rule, the overall similarity test, and the perspective of an average consumer, the bench said it prima facie did not find any deceptive similarity between the competing marks that would give rise to confusion.
"The marks - 'BLENDERS PRIDE' and 'LONDON PRIDE' - are clearly not identical. Though the products are similar, the branding, packaging, and trade dress of each are materially distinct. The commercial court and high court have rightly held that the term 'PRIDE' is publici juris, and commonly used in the liquor industry. The dominant components - 'BLENDERS', 'IMPERIAL BLUE', and 'LONDON' - are entirely different both visually and phonetically, producing distinct overall impressions," it said.
The courts below also correctly observed the products in question are premium and ultra-premium whiskies, targeted at a discerning consumer base, it added.
"Such consumers are likely to exercise greater care in their purchase decisions. The distinct trade dress and packaging reduce any likelihood of confusion. The shared use of the laudatory word 'PRIDE', in isolation, cannot form the basis for injunctive relief," it said.
"The appellants' attempt to combine elements from two distinct marks -'BLENDERS PRIDE' and 'IMPERIAL BLUE' - to challenge the respondent's mark 'LONDON PRIDE', constitutes a hybrid and untenable pleading. Each mark must be assessed independently, and cherry-picking generic or unregistered features from multiple marks to fabricate a composite case of infringement is not legally sustainable," it said.
While dismissing the appeal, it asked the local commercial court to proceed with the trial and dispose of the suit on merits, in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations made by this court or by the courts below, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The verdict came on a plea of liquor major Pernod Ricard India Pvt Ltd, which manufactures and sells 'Blenders Pride' and 'Imperial Blue' whisky, against 2023 verdict of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
Pernod Ricard moved the high court against an order passed by commercial court, Indore, which rejected their application for issuance of temporary injunction.
It told the high court that they have registered trade mark in respect of "Blenders Pride" and "Imperial Blue" and also have such registered trade mark in respect of Seagram's which is their house mark and appears on their products sold under various brands.
It alleged JK Enterprises has imitated their trade mark and is manufacturing and selling its whisky under the trade mark "London Pride" but the high court dismissed its plea.
Writing a 97-page verdict, Justice Mahadevan said trademark law protects overall consumer impressions rather than dissected components of a brand name. It said the dominant parts of the marks, "Blenders," "Imperial Blue," and "London", were entirely different in sight, sound, and meaning.
The bench also found that the bottle shapes, label designs, and packaging styles were distinct enough to avoid confusion among consumers.
It said term "Pride" is 'publici juris', (common to the trade) and appears in numerous registered liquor trademarks in India.
A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan upheld decisions of the Madhya Pradesh High Court and the Indore Commercial Court which refused to grant the French-owned spirits company an interim injunction against Indore-based manufacturer Karanveer Singh Chhabra.
The issue was whether Pernod Ricard India was entitled to an order restraining Chhabra from using the impugned trademark, get-up, and trade dress, including the packaging of 'LONDON PRIDE' on the ground that such use amounts to infringement its registered trademarks, such as " 'BLENDERS PRIDE', 'IMPERIAL BLUE', and 'SEAGRAM'S".
"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 imperfect recollection," it said.
Applying the settled legal standards, including the anti-dissection rule, the overall similarity test, and the perspective of an average consumer, the bench said it prima facie did not find any deceptive similarity between the competing marks that would give rise to confusion.
"The marks - 'BLENDERS PRIDE' and 'LONDON PRIDE' - are clearly not identical. Though the products are similar, the branding, packaging, and trade dress of each are materially distinct. The commercial court and high court have rightly held that the term 'PRIDE' is publici juris, and commonly used in the liquor industry. The dominant components - 'BLENDERS', 'IMPERIAL BLUE', and 'LONDON' - are entirely different both visually and phonetically, producing distinct overall impressions," it said.
The courts below also correctly observed the products in question are premium and ultra-premium whiskies, targeted at a discerning consumer base, it added.
"Such consumers are likely to exercise greater care in their purchase decisions. The distinct trade dress and packaging reduce any likelihood of confusion. The shared use of the laudatory word 'PRIDE', in isolation, cannot form the basis for injunctive relief," it said.
"The appellants' attempt to combine elements from two distinct marks -'BLENDERS PRIDE' and 'IMPERIAL BLUE' - to challenge the respondent's mark 'LONDON PRIDE', constitutes a hybrid and untenable pleading. Each mark must be assessed independently, and cherry-picking generic or unregistered features from multiple marks to fabricate a composite case of infringement is not legally sustainable," it said.
While dismissing the appeal, it asked the local commercial court to proceed with the trial and dispose of the suit on merits, in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations made by this court or by the courts below, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The verdict came on a plea of liquor major Pernod Ricard India Pvt Ltd, which manufactures and sells 'Blenders Pride' and 'Imperial Blue' whisky, against 2023 verdict of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
Pernod Ricard moved the high court against an order passed by commercial court, Indore, which rejected their application for issuance of temporary injunction.
It told the high court that they have registered trade mark in respect of "Blenders Pride" and "Imperial Blue" and also have such registered trade mark in respect of Seagram's which is their house mark and appears on their products sold under various brands.
It alleged JK Enterprises has imitated their trade mark and is manufacturing and selling its whisky under the trade mark "London Pride" but the high court dismissed its plea.
Writing a 97-page verdict, Justice Mahadevan said trademark law protects overall consumer impressions rather than dissected components of a brand name. It said the dominant parts of the marks, "Blenders," "Imperial Blue," and "London", were entirely different in sight, sound, and meaning.
The bench also found that the bottle shapes, label designs, and packaging styles were distinct enough to avoid confusion among consumers.
It said term "Pride" is 'publici juris', (common to the trade) and appears in numerous registered liquor trademarks in India.
You may also like
Alaska has been site of the closest US-India strategic embrace
Hot weather forecast as 40C heatwave hits north of France and whole of UK sizzles
Europe seeks to derail US-Russian peace negotiations over Ukraine, leading expert says
Independence Day wishes 2025: Top 100 heartfelt greetings, quotes, and messages
Twitter down LIVE: Tens of thousands of users unable to access X
