# Pernod Ricard India Private Limited & Another v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra

- **Citation:** 2025 INSC 981
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2025-08-14
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 10638 of 2025
- **Bench:** J.B. Pardiwala, R. Mahadevan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/pernod-ricard-india-private-limited-another-v-karanveer-singh-chhabra-38613
- **Pages:** 97

## Headnote

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 antidissection 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,

## Text

_Characters 0–39,850 of 198,749. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39850 for what follows._

[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 antidissection 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 visually, phonetically, and conceptually distinct - The
appellants cannot assert monopoly over the common term 'PRIDE',
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
807
Pernod Ricard India Private Limited & Another v.
Karanveer Singh Chhabra
and no actionable similarity arises merely from its use in the
respondent's mark. [Paras 32.4, 33.4, 34.6]
2.2. In the present case, 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.
[Para 45]
2.3. The courts below also correctly observed that the products in
question are premium and ultra-premium whiskies, targeted at a
discerning consumer base -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 -In the liquor industry, where advertising is highly
restricted, brand recognition rests predominantly on packaging and
consumer loyalty - Unless the imitation is deliberate and intended
to mislead, the chance of confusion is minimal - The allegation of
counterfeiting in the present case appears to be speculative and
unsupported by credible evidence. [Paras 46, 49]
3. 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 is not in dispute that the word "PRIDE" is not
registered as a standalone mark - Nor can the appellants claim
exclusivity over common elements like bottle shape or color
schemes that are generic and widely used in the industry - While
the composite marks 'BLENDERS PRIDE' and 'IMPERIAL BLUE'
are protected, their individual elements - lacking distinctiveness -
are not independently enforceable. [Paras 50, 51]
4. The High Court correctly noted that 'BLENDERS PRIDE' uses
a round bottle, whereas 'LONDON PRIDE' adopts a cylindrical
form - The labels, cartons, and design motifs are entirely different -
These variations eliminate the possibility of confusion - Comparison
808
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
between 'IMPERIAL BLUE' and 'LONDON PRIDE' reveals even
greater divergence - The marks differ in word arrangement, label
structure, and packaging - No similarity exists, visual, phonetic,
or structural, that can support a claim for infringement or passing
off - Since resemblance is a sine qua non for both causes of
action, the appellants' claim must fail - Although the appellants hold
registrations for the composite marks, no evidence was adduced
to demonstrate that any particular element, such as bottle shape,
color scheme, or the word "PRIDE", had acquired distinctiveness
or secondary meaning -Trademark protection extends only to
distinctive identifiers - Descriptive or commonplace elements fall
outside the ambit of protection unless distinctiveness is proved.
[Paras 53-55]
5. Significantly, the appellants' earlier challenge to United Spirits'
use of the term 'PRIDE' in the mark "Royal Challenger American
Pride" was unsuccessful - The Punjab and Haryana High Court held
that the appellants did not possess an independent registration for
the word 'Pride', but only for the composite mark 'Blenders Pride' -
Accordingly, they could not claim any exclusive or enforceable rights
over the standalone word 'Pride' - The Court further observed that
having failed to object to the registration of the impugned mark
before the Trade Marks Registry, the appellants were estopped from
asserting such rights subsequently - This decision was upheld by
this Court in SLP (C) No. 17674/2023 dismissed on 06.09.2023 -
Therefore, the appellants' present attempt is contrary to law and
settled principles of equity. [Para 56]
6. There is no ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of
the Commercial Court and the High Court - Appellants have failed
to establish a prima facie case of deceptive similarity that could
justify the grant of interim injunction. [Para 57]
Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Scheme of - Elucidated:
Held: In essence, the Trade Marks Act, 1999 provides a
comprehensive statutory framework for protecting registered
trademarks, while also preserving the rights of prior users through
passing off actions - The Act clearly distinguishes between absolute
and relative grounds for refusal of registration and provides
effective enforcement mechanisms - Crucially, the guiding test is
the likelihood of confusion in the mind of an average consumer not
actual confusion, which serves as the touchstone for both refusal
of registration and infringement proceedings. [Para 18.8]
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
809
Pernod Ricard India Private Limited & Another v.
Karanveer Singh Chhabra
Trademarks - 'Infringement' and 'Passing off' - Distinction
between:
Held: A key distinction between the two lies in the requirements
of proof - In an infringement action, the plaintiff is not required to
establish the distinctiveness or goodwill of the mark, registration, by
itself, affords the right to seek protection - If the impugned mark is
shown to be identical or deceptively similar to the registered mark, no
further evidence of confusion or deception is necessary - However,
in a passing off action, the plaintiff must prove: (i) the existence
of goodwill or reputation in the mark, (ii) a misrepresentation
made by the defendant, and (iii) a likelihood of damage to the
plaintiff's goodwill - While an intent to deceive is not a necessary
element in either action, passing off requires proof of a likelihood
of confusion or deception - Actual deception or damage need not
be proved - the test is whether confusion is probable in the mind
of the average consumer due to the similarity in the marks or the
overall get-up of the goods - Another key distinction is that in a
passing off action, the defendant's goods need not be identical to
those of the plaintiff they may be allied or even unrelated, provided
the misrepresentation is such that it affects or is likely to affect the
plaintiff's business reputation - In contrast, infringement requires
that the unauthorised use relate to the same or similar goods or
services for which the trademark is registered - Additionally, in an
infringement suit, it is not necessary for the plaintiff to establish use
of the mark; even a registered proprietor who has not commenced
use can sue for infringement - However, in a passing off action, the
plaintiff must demonstrate prior and continuous use, and that the
mark has acquired distinctiveness in the minds of the public - While
both actions seek to prevent unfair competition and protect against
consumer confusion, an action for infringement offers broader
statutory protection based solely on registration and ownership - In
contrast, passing off is grounded in equitable principles and imposes
a higher evidentiary burden to safeguard commercial goodwill under
common law. [Paras 29.1-29.5]
Trademarks - 'Infringement' and 'Passing off' - Principles
governing grant of injunction - Discussed:
Held: As a general rule, a proprietor whose statutory or common
law rights are infringed is entitled to seek an injunction to restrain
further unlawful use - However, this remedy is not absolute - The
considerations governing the grant of injunctions in trademark
810
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
infringement actions broadly apply to passing off claims as well -
That said, a fundamental distinction remains: while a registered
proprietor may, upon proving infringement, seek to restrain all use
of the infringing mark, a passing off action does not by itself confer
an exclusive right - The grant of injunction, whether for infringement
or passing off, is ultimately governed by equitable principles and
is subject to the general framework applicable to proprietary
rights - Where actual infringement is established, that alone may
justify injunctive relief; a plaintiff is not expected to wait for further
acts of defiance - Grant of interim injunction in trademark matters
requires the court to consider multiple interrelated factors: prima
facie case, likelihood of confusion, relative merits of the parties'
claims, balance of convenience, risk of irreparable harm, and the
public interest - These considerations operate cumulatively, and
the absence of any one of these may be sufficient to decline interim
relief. [Paras 36.1-36.4]
Trademarks - Evaluation of competing trademarks - Courts
not expected to adopt a mechanical, side-by-side comparison
of the marks - Judicial scrutiny is guided by interpretative
doctrines. [Para 4]
Trademarks - Principle governing trademark infringement and
passing off - Similarity and Distinctiveness: Name, Colour
Scheme, and Trade Dress - Discussed. [Paras 31, 31.1-31.8]
Trademarks - Principle governing trademark infringement
and passing off - Rule of Anti-Dissection - Discussed.
[Paras 32, 32.1-32.3]
Trademarks - Principle governing trademark infringement
and passing off - Dominant Feature Test - Discussed.
[Paras 33, 33.1-33.3]
Trademarks - Principle governing trademark infringement and
passing off - No Exclusive Right Over Common or Descriptive
Terms - Discussed. [Paras 34, 34.1-34.5]
Trademarks - Principle governing trademark infringement
and passing off - Average Consumer Test and Doctrine of
Imperfect Recollection - Discussed. [Paras 35, 35.1-35.6]
Trademarks - Recent evolution of Trademark jurisprudence
in the United Kingdom - Post-sale confusion doctrine -
Discussed. [Paras 40-40.6]
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
811
Pernod Ricard India Private Limited & Another v.
Karanveer Singh Chhabra
Case Law Cited
Parle Products (P) Ltd., v. J.P. & Co., Mysore [1972] 3 SCR 289 :
(1972) 1 SCC 618; Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals
Ltd. [2001] 2 SCR 743 : AIR 2001 SC 1952; Wander Ltd. v. Antox
India (P) Ltd. (1990) Supp. 1 SCC 727 : 1990 SCC OnLine SC
490; Godfrey Philips India Ltd v. Girnar Food & Beverages Pvt.
Ltd. (2004) 5 SCC 257 - relied on.
Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satyadeo Gupta [1963] 2 SCR 484 : AIR
1963 SC 449; Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navaratna
Pharmaceutical Laboratories [1965] 1 SCR 737 : AIR 1965 SC
980; Corn Products Refining Co. v. Shangrila Food Products
[1960] 1 SCR 968 : AIR 1960 SC 142; National Bell Co. v. Metal
Goods Manufacturing Co. [1971] 1 SCR 70 : (1970) 3 SCC 665;
S.M.Dychem v. Cadbury India Ltd [2000] Supp. 1 SCR 86 : 2000
(5) SCC 573; T.V. Venugopal v. Ushodaya Enterprises [2011] 4 SCR
1000 : (2011) 4 SCC 85; Midas Hygiene Industries (P) Ltd v. Sudhir
Bhatia (2004) 3 SCC 90; Heinz Italia v. Dabur India Ltd (2007)
6 SCC 1; Khoday Distilleries Ltd v. Scotch Whisky Association
[2008] 9 SCR 975 : 2008 (10) SCC 723; Baker Hughes Ltd v.
Hiroo Khushalani (2004) 12 SCC 628; Coca-Cola Company of
Canada Ltd. v. Pepsi-Cola Company of Canada Ltd., 1942 SCC
OnLine PC 7 : AIR 1942 PC 40 (5J); Corn Products Refining Co., v.
Shangrila Food Products Ltd. [1960] 1 SCR 968 : AIR 1960 SC
142; Anand Prasad Agarwalla v. Tarkeshwar Prasad and Others
(2001) 5 SCC 568; Ramakant Ambalal Choksi v. Harish Ambalal
Choksi and Others [2024] 11 SCR 1343 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC
3538; Tungabhadra Industries Ltd v. Registrar of Trade Marks,
AIR 1959 SC 989; Bajaj Auto Ltd v. TVS Motor Co. Ltd [2009] 14
SCR 548 : (2009) 9 SCC 797 - referred to.
Pernod Ricard India (P) Ltd. v. United Spirits Ltd., 2023 SCC
OnLine P&H 477 : (2023) 3 RCR (Civil) 162 - referred to.
Mishawaka Rubber and Woolen Manufacturing Co. v. S.S. Kresge
Co., 316 US 203 (1942); Singer Manufacturing Co v. loog, 1880
18 Ch.D. 395, p.412; Parker - Knoll Ltd v. Knoll International Ltd.,
1962 RPC 265; Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer v. Klijsen Handel BV
Case C-342/97 [2000] F.S.R. 77, ECJ; James Crossley Eno v.
William George Dunn, H.L. (E) 1890, June 19. Vol. XV, App.
Cas. page 252; Aristoc Ltd v. Rysta Ltd., 1945 AC 68 (House
of Lords); Pianotist Co. Ltd's Application (1906) 23 RPC 774 at
p. 777; American Cyanamid Co. v. Ethicon Ltd., (1975) AC 396;
Iconix Luxembourg Holdings SARL (Respondent) v Dream Pairs
Europe Inc and Another (Appellants) [2025] UKSC 25 - referred to.
812
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
List of Acts
Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Books and Periodicals Cited
McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition - referred to.
List of Keywords
Trademark Infringement; Passing Off; Deceptive Similarity;
Distinctiveness; Trade Dress; Colour Scheme; Packaging; AntiDissection Rule; Dominant Feature Test; Average Consumer Test;
Imperfect Recollection; Interim Injunction; Prima Facie Case;
Balance Of Convenience; Irreparable Harm; Injurious Association;
Initial Interest Confusion; Goodwill; Reputation; Secondary Meaning;
Well-Known Trademark; Statutory Framework; Trade Marks Act
1999; Section 28 Rights; Section 29 Infringement; Section 135
Remedies; Judicial Precedents; Comparative Advertising; Phonetic
Similarity; Visual Similarity; Structural Similarity; Consumer
Confusion; Market Misappropriation; Honest Practices; Unfair
Competition; Brand Identity; Commercial Integrity; Public Interest;
International Jurisprudence; Post-Sale Confusion Doctrine;
Injunctive Relief.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 10638 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.11.2023 of the High Court
of Madhya Pradesh at Indore in MA No. 232 of 2021
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellants:
Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Advs., Hemant Singh,
Ms. Mamta Jha, Mohit D. Ram, Sambhav Jain, Akhil Saxena,
Ms. Reha Mohan, Rajul Shrivastav, Ms. Monisha Handa, Anubhav
Sharma, Sidhant Oberoi, Ms. Akanksha Majumdar, Ms. Nayan
Gupta, Sabir Kachhi, Ms. Pritha Suri, Ms. Ira Mahajan, Ms. Tabeer
Riyaz.
Advs. for the Respondent:
Shyam Devan, Abhimanyu Bhandari, Sr. Advs., Vaibhav Mishra,
Ekansh Mishra, Ayush Jain, Roungan Chowdhury, Shubham Tiwari.
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
813
Pernod Ricard India Private Limited & Another v.
Karanveer Singh Chhabra
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
R. Mahadevan, J.
Leave granted. For the sake of convenience and in order to facilitate
a structured analysis, this judgment is arranged under the following
heads:
Sl.
No.
HEADINGS
PAGE
NO.*
I
INTRODUCTION
03
II
FACTUAL MATRIX
05
III
CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES
08
IV
ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
17
V
STATUTORY FRAMEWORK - OVERVIEW OF
RELEVANT PROVISIONS FROM THE TRADE MARK
ACT, 1999
18
VI
JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS
27
VII
ANALYSIS AND APPLICATION OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES
48
(A)
SIMILARITY AND DISTINCTIVENESS - NAME,
COLOUR SCHEME, AND TRADE DRESS
58
(B)
ANTI-DISSECTION RULE
62
(C)
DOMINANT FEATURE TEST
65
(D)
NO EXCLUSIVE RIGHT OVER COMMON OR
DESCRIPTIVE TERMS
68
(E)
AVERAGE CONSUMER TEST AND IMPERFECT
RECOLLECTION
70
(F)
LEGAL PRINCIPLES GOVERNING GRANT OF
INTERIM INJUNCTION
74
VIII
R E C E N T E V O L U T I O N O F T R A D E M A R K
JURISPRUDENCE IN THE UK - THE POST-SALE
CONFUSION DOCTRINE
82
IX
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
91
X
CONCLUSION
97
* Ed. Note: Pagination as per the original Judgment.
814
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
I.
INTRODUCTION
1.
The Law of trademarks has been aptly described by Justice
Frankfurter of the United States Supreme Court in the following words:
"The protection of trademarks is the law's recognition of
the psychological function of symbols. If it is true that we
live by symbols, it is no less true that we purchase goods
by them. A trademark is a merchandising shortcut which
induces a purchaser to select what he wants, or what he
has been led to believe he wants. The owner of a trademark
exploits this human propensity by making every human
effort to impregnate the atmosphere of the market with the
drawing power of a congenial symbol. Whatever the means
employed, the aim is the same - to convey through the
mark, in the minds of potential customers, the desirability
of the commodity upon which it appears. Once this is
attained, the trademark owner has something of value. If
another poaches upon the commercial magnetism of the
symbol he has created, the owner can obtain legal redress".
- Mishawaka Rubber and Woolen Manufacturing Co. v. S.S.
Kresge Co.1
2.
Trademarks are central to the identity, survival, and growth of any
business operating in a competitive commercial environment. They
enable enterprises to establish consumer trust and preserve the
goodwill built over time through substantial investments in quality,
service, and brand visibility. For consumers, trademarks serve as
indicators of the source and consistent quality of goods or services
across different providers, thereby enabling them to make informed
choices, which may, at a minimum, affect taste and preference, and
at a maximum, impact their health and well-being. It is, therefore,
imperative that intellectual property rights are robustly protected against
infringing entities that seek to unfairly capitalize on another's goodwill,
to the detriment of both the rightful owner and the end consumer.
3.
At the heart of trademark law lies the foundational principle that there
must be no likelihood of confusion in the mind of the average consumer.
In cases involving composite marks, it is not necessary that the
impugned mark replicate the original in its entirety; even partial imitation
1
316 US 203 (1942)
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
815
Pernod Ricard India Private Limited & Another v.
Karanveer Singh Chhabra
may amount to infringement or passing off if it evokes an association
with the registered or prior-used mark in the consumer's mind.
4.
However, the application of this principle is nuanced. Courts are not
expected to adopt a mechanical, side-by-side comparison of the
marks. Rather, judicial scrutiny is guided by interpretative doctrines
such as the anti-dissection rule and the doctrine of the dominant mark,
inter alia, other well-established tests. Although these principles are
frequently applied in tandem, they do not always align perfectly, and
courts have differed in their application depending on the specific
facts and context of each case.
5.
The present case offers an opportunity for this Court to clarify the
appropriate analytical framework for evaluating competing trademarks.
While the anti-dissection rule - which requires the mark to be
considered as a whole - has statutory foundation under the Trade
Marks Act, 1999, the doctrine of the dominant mark is a judicially
evolved principle, aimed at identifying the essential or memorable
component of a mark that is likely to influence consumer perception.
The purpose of this doctrine is to determine whether the impugned
mark creates a deceptive association in the minds of consumers,
thereby enabling the defendant to unjustly benefit from the plaintiff's
established reputation. This analysis is guided by the perspective of
an average consumer with imperfect recollection, who is not expected
to retain or compare marks with exact precision.
II.
FACTUAL MATRIX
6.
This appeal arises from the judgment dated 03.11.2023 passed by
the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore2 in Misc. Appeal No.
232 of 2021, whereby the High Court dismissed the appellants'
challenge to the order dated 26.11.2020 passed by the Commercial
Court (District Judge Level), Indore3 in Case No. COMMS 3 of 2020
and IA No.01 of 2020.
7.
By the order dated 26.11.2020, the Commercial Court rejected the
application filed by the appellants under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and
2 of the Code of Civil Procedure4. For ease of reference, the reliefs
sought in the interlocutory application are reproduced below:
2
Hereinafter referred to as "the High Court"
3
For short, "the Commercial Court"
4
For short, "CPC"
816
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
"... to grant an order of interim injunction restraining the
Defendant, its proprietors, partners as the case may be,
assigns in business, sister concerns, associates, agents,
dealers, distributors, stockists, etc. from manufacturing,
selling, offering for sale, advertising in any manner including
on the internet, directly or indirectly dealing in whisky or
any alcoholic or non-alcoholic beverages under the trade
mark LONDON PRIDE and/or label and/or packaging and/
or any other label/packaging and/or trade mark that may
be identical/deceptively similar to IMPERIAL BLUE label
or packaging and/or deceptively similar to the trade mark
BLENDERS PRIDE and/or SEAGRAM'S amounting to
infringement of Plaintiffs' trademark registrations and/or
copyright and/or passing off and/or unfair competition."
"... in view of the facts and circumstances of the present
case and in the interest of justice and the public interest,
an ex parte ad interim injunction in the aforementioned
terms may kindly be passed in favour of the Plaintiffs /
Applicants and against the Defendant."
8.
According to the appellants, they are engaged in the manufacture
and distribution of wines, liquors, and spirits. They 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.
9.
On 05.02.1945, the appellants' predecessor viz., Seagram Company
Limited obtained registration of the trademark SEAGRAM'S vide
Registration No. 105507 in Class 33, in respect of "Whisky". Later,
on 25.03.1994, registration of the trademark 'BLENDERS PRIDE'
was obtained vide Registration No. 623365 in Class 33, covering
"Wines, Spirits and Liqueurs". The trademark 'BLENDERS PRIDE'
was coined and adopted by the appellants' predecessor, and has
been in extensive worldwide use since 1973 for whisky products.
10. In 1995, 'BLENDERS PRIDE' whisky was launched in India, and
achieved an annual turnover exceeding INR 1,700 Crores for
the financial year 2019-20. In 1997, the appellants' predecessor
launched whisky under the trademark 'IMPERIAL BLUE' in India. On
28.06.2016, they secured registration of the 'IMPERIAL BLUE' device,
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
817
Pernod Ricard India Private Limited & Another v.
Karanveer Singh Chhabra
vide Registration No. 3296387 in Class 33, for "Alcoholic beverages,
except beers", followed by Registration No. 3327621 on 03.08.2016
for the same mark in the same class. The brand 'IMPERIAL BLUE'
achieved an annual turnover exceeding INR 2,700 Crores for the
financial year 2018-19. Both brands today enjoy formidable goodwill
and reputation, domestically and internationally.
11. In May 2019, the appellants became aware that the respondent has
been marketing whisky under the mark 'LONDON PRIDE', using
packaging that was deceptively similar to that of the appellants.
The mark adopted by the respondent was not only phonetically and
visually similar to 'BLENDERS PRIDE', but also copied the colour
combination, get-up and trade dress of 'IMPERIAL BLUE' label.
Further, the respondent used 'SEAGRAM'S' embossed bottles of the
appellants' mark 'IMPERIAL BLUE', for the sale of its LONDON PRIDE
whisky, which also amounts to an infringement of the appellants'
registered SEAGRAM'S trademark.
12. Aggrieved by the respondent's actions, the appellants instituted Civil
Suit No. 3 of 2020 before the Commercial Court, seeking a decree
of permanent injunction restraining the respondent from trademark
infringement, passing off, copyright violation, and also prayed for
reliefs, such as, rendition of accounts, damages, and delivery up of
infringing material. An application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and
2 CPC, was also filed seeking an interim injunction.
13. By order dated 26.11.2020, the Commercial Court dismissed the
interim injunction application. Challenging the same, the appellants
approached the High Court by filing Misc. Appeal No. 232 of 2021,
which was also dismissed vide judgment dated 03.11.2023, which
is impugned in the present appeal.
III.
CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES
14. Assailing the judgment passed by the High Court, the learned Senior
Counsel for the appellants made the following submissions:
14.1. The present case involves elements of both trademark
infringement and passing off. The respondent has dishonestly
adopted trademarks deceptively similar to the appellants' wellknown and registered marks - 'BLENDERS PRIDE', 'IMPERIAL
BLUE', and 'SEAGRAM'S' - used for whisky, which enjoy
significant commercial reputation in India and internationally.
818
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
14.2. The appellants' trademarks are duly registered and protected
under Sections 28 and 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
'BLENDERS PRIDE' has been in continuous use since 1995,
with annual sales exceeding INR 1,700 Crores; 'IMPERIAL
BLUE' has been in use since 1997, with annual sales
exceeding INR 2,700 Crores. In contrast, the respondent has
only a pending application for the mark 'LONDON PRIDE' and
has failed to justify its adoption of a deceptively similar mark.
14.3. The imitation of two established brands - 'BLENDERS
PRIDE' and 'IMPERIAL BLUE' - by the respondent is neither
coincidental nor innocent; it is a deliberate and dishonest
attempt to misappropriate the appellants' goodwill and
reputation, thereby creating confusion or association with the
appellants' goods. This conduct constitutes both trademark
infringement and passing off.
14.4. The Appellate Court failed to apply the test of deceptive similarity
laid down by this Court in Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma
v. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories5, where it was
held that once the essential features of a registered mark are
copied, differences in get-up, packaging, or additional writing
are immaterial. Similarly, in Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satyadeo
Gupta6 this Court held that marks must be compared as a
whole, without dissecting or excluding any part. The Appellate
Court erroneously dissected the mark 'BLENDERS PRIDE'
and compared "BLENDERS" with "LONDON", ignoring the
distinctive and dominant component "PRIDE" - thus violating
both the anti-dissection rule and the doctrine of overall similarity.
14.5. In an infringement analysis, the test is whether there is a
likelihood of confusion or association in the mind of the public.
This is a matter for judicial determination and not dependent
on testimonial evidence. The law protects against the likelihood
of confusion itself; there is no requirement to prove actual
deception or damage. Trademarks are remembered by their
overall commercial impression, and even minor variations may
be perceived by consumers as brand extensions or sub-brands.
5
AIR 1965 SC 980
6
AIR 1963 SC 449
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
819
Pernod Ricard India Private Limited & Another v.
Karanveer Singh Chhabra
14.6. In the present case, the composite mark 'LONDON PRIDE' is
deceptively similar to the registered word mark 'BLENDERS
PRIDE'. Both are used for identical goods - Indian Made
Foreign Liquor (IMFL Whisky) - and are sold through the
same trade channels. The term 'PRIDE' which is neither
generic nor descriptive in the context of alcoholic beverages,
forms the essential and dominant part of the appellants' mark.
The respondent's use of this term, combined with another
descriptive term, results in an overall similarity that is likely
to mislead an average consumer with imperfect recollection.
14.7. The label and packaging of 'LONDON PRIDE' constitute a
colourable imitation of the registered trademarks associated
with 'IMPERIAL BLUE', including the label, packaging, and
bottle design. Despite acknowledging the principle of overall
comparison, the Appellate Court erred by dissecting individual
elements rather than assessing the overall visual impression
created by the competing marks.
14.8. The Appellate Court placed undue emphasis on the dissimilarity
between the word marks 'IMPERIAL BLUE' and 'LONDON
PRIDE' while overlooking the visual similarities in colour
scheme, layout, and overall packaging. It is well settled that
the use of a deceptively similar logo alone can amount to
infringement of a registered device mark.
14.9. The Appellate Court erred in applying Sections 15(1) and
17(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, despite the appellants
not claiming exclusive rights over the word 'PRIDE' per se,
but only over the composite mark 'BLENDERS PRIDE' as
a whole, protected under Section 17(1). The finding that
'PRIDE' is publici juris, is flawed, as the respondent produced
no evidence of actual or widespread use in the trade. Mere
entries in the Trademark Register are legally insufficient,
as held in Corn Products Refining Co. v. Shangrila
Food Products7, and National Bell Co. v. Metal Goods
Manufacturing Co.8.
7
AIR 1960 SC 142
8
(1970) 3 SCC 665
820
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
14.10. The Courts below erroneously relied on the overruled decision
in S.M.Dychem v. Cadbury India Ltd9, which emphasized
dissimilarities in marks. The binding decision in Cadila
Healthcare Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. 10 requires
an assessment of overall similarity from the perspective of
an average consumer with imperfect recollection.
14.11. Reliance was placed on T.V. Venugopal v. Ushodaya
Enterprises11, Midas Hygiene Industries (P) Ltd v. Sudhir
Bhatia12, and Heinz Italia v. Dabur India Ltd13, which held
that in cases of dishonest adoption, injunctive relief must
follow in order to uphold commercial integrity and protect
consumer interest.
14.12. The Appellate Court wrongly presumed that consumers of
IMFL whisky are discerning and literate, thereby ruling out
the likelihood of confusion. However, the test of imperfect
recollection applies regardless of a consumer's education
or economic background. In Cadila Health Care ltd v.
Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd (supra), this Court affirmed
that similarity between marks must be assessed from
the perspective of an average consumer with imperfect
recollection.
14.13. The respondent's reliance on Khoday Distilleries Ltd v.
Scotch Whisky Association14 is misplaced. That decision
involved a claim that the use of the term "SCOT" in the mark
'PETER SCOT' might mislead consumers into believing
the product was Scotch whisky. The Court held that such
consumers were discerning, but the context was specific to
origin misrepresentation. The present case involves not the
geographic origin of whisky, but deceptive similarity between
brands. Moreover, Khoday Distilleries was not a case of
trade mark infringement or passing off, but one concerning
9
2000 (5) SCC 573
10
AIR 2001 SC 1952 : AIR 2001 SC 1952
11
(2011) 4 SCC 85
12
(2004) 3 SCC 90
13
(2007) 6 SCC 1
14
2008 (10) SCC 723
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
821
Pernod Ricard India Private Limited & Another v.
Karanveer Singh Chhabra
cancellation of registration under Section 9 of the Trade
Marks Act, and is therefore inapplicable.
14.14. The continuous use of SEAGRAM'S embossed bottles by
the respondent constitutes an infringement of the appellants'
registered word mark. However, the Appellate Court failed
to return any finding on this crucial issue.
14.15. Reference was made to the concept of "Injurious association",
wherein the similarity of brands leads consumers to
associate the defendant's product with that of the plaintiff,
thereby misappropriating the plaintiff's goodwill. Such
misappropriation causes irreparable harm - greater than mere
monetary loss - because it undermines the brand identity
and reputation built over decades. The structural similarity
between 'BLENDERS PRIDE' and 'LONDON PRIDE', is
likely to create an assumption that the two originate from
the same source or that one is a variant of the other. Such
mis-association is actionable and warrants injunctive relief.
14.16. "Initial interest confusion" arises, where consumers are initially
drawn to a product due to its similar branding, even if they
realise prior to purchase that it is not the original. Courts have
held that such conduct still constitutes misappropriation of
goodwill. This principle is directly applicable to the present
case. In this regard, reliance was placed on Baker Hughes
Ltd v. Hiroo Khushalani15.
14.17. The appellants have established a prima facie case of
both infringement and passing off. Their marks have been
in continuous and extensive use for over three decades,
and enjoy substantial goodwill. In contrast, the respondent
entered the market only in 2018 and lacks any statutory or
proprietary rights.
14.18. Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 03.11.2023 is
liable to be set aside, and that the appellants are entitled to
interim injunction to protect their statutory and proprietary
rights, and to restrain the respondent from continuing its
infringing and unlawful conduct.
15
(2004) 12 SCC 628
822
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
15. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent submitted
that the respondent is the proprietor of the trademark 'LONDON
PRIDE' and all associated intellectual property. The respondent has
been manufacturing and marketing liquor under the said brand name
in the State of Madhya Pradesh. It was submitted that the respondent
is the sole applicant for registration of the mark 'LONDON PRIDE',
and no other party has ever sought registration under the same or
similar name. Accordingly, the respondent claims exclusive rights
over the mark 'LONDON PRIDE', including its distinctive elements
and the goodwill attached thereto. It was further contended that the
respondent's mark is entirely dissimilar in name, appearance, and
composition from any of the appellants' earlier registered trademarks.
The brand 'LONDON PRIDE' is also registered with the Excise
Department of Madha Pradesh. According to the learned counsel,
there exists no visual, phonetic, or structural similarity between their
mark and those of the appellants. The appellants, therefore, lack a
prima facie case, and the elements of irreparable harm and balance
of convenience are also not in their favour. However, the factual
assertions concerning the appellants' trademarks, their registration
status, and usage were not disputed.
15.1. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that the label
used by the appellants for their products under the trademark
'IMPERIAL BLUE' and the label of the respondent's product
sold under 'LONDON PRIDE' are entirely distinct, with no
elements of visual or conceptual overlap. It was submitted
that there is no deceptive similarity between the labels that
could lead to confusion in the minds of consumers.
15.2. It was additionally, submitted that the impugned order
represents a proper and lawful exercise of jurisdiction by the
Commercial Court, which thoroughly evaluated the marks and
packaging of both parties before arriving at its conclusion. A
holistic comparison of the trademarks and packaging reveals
that the two products are clearly distinguishable. The goods
of both parties are sold in sealed boxes, not loose, and the
boxes themselves are visually distinct. The colour scheme,
typography, logos and other graphical elements are markedly
different.