House no. 316, Ground Floor "A" Sector, Yelahanka New Town Bengaluru- 560 064

Shivani Complex, Kanta Stri Vikas Gruh Road Rajkot - 360 002. INDIA Phone : +91 281 242 731

203,Shriji Palace,Savsar Plot, Main Road, Morbi-363641 INDIA Phone:91 2822225263

312-313, 3rd Floor, Abhishek Complex, Akshar Chowk, Old Padra Road,
Vadodara 390 020 INDIA
Phone: (0265) 2322015

The long-running tussle between Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd., the maker of well-known whisky brands like Blenders Pride and Imperial Blue, and Karanveer Singh Chhabra, the proprietor of London Pride whisky, reached the Supreme Court this August. Pernod Ricard sought to restrain the sale of London Pride alleging trademark infringement and deceptive similarity. The Supreme Court, however, upheld the findings of the lower courts and dismissed the plea.

• Pernod Ricard argued that “London Pride” was deceptively similar to “Blenders Pride”, especially due to the shared word “Pride”.
• They further alleged that the packaging and trade dress of London Pride bottles imitated their brand Imperial Blue, particularly the blue color scheme, creating a likelihood of consumer confusion.
• The company insisted that its brands enjoyed significant goodwill and reputation in the Indian market, warranting strong protection against even partial overlaps in branding.
• The Defendant maintained that London Pride is a registered trademark and a completely distinct brand.
• They emphasized that the word “Pride” is a common, laudatory term used widely in the liquor trade, and cannot be monopolized by one company.
• It was also argued that premium whisky buyers are discerning customers who are unlikely to confuse “Blenders Pride” with “London Pride.”

Key Developments Before the Supreme Court

• Pernod Ricard first approached the Commercial Court seeking an interim injunction against the sale of London Pride.
• The Court rejected the plea, noting clear distinctions between “Blenders” and “London,” and observing that “Pride” alone could not justify exclusivity.
• On appeal, the MP High Court upheld the Commercial Court’s findings, agreeing that there was no prima facie case of confusion.
• It further noted that the whisky segment in question catered to a more informed consumer base, minimizing the likelihood of deception.
• Pernod Ricard challenged both rulings before the Supreme Court, reiterating that allowing “London Pride” would dilute the goodwill built around “Blenders Pride.”
• The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that:
  • The marks must be compared holistically, not dissected.
  • The words “Blenders” and “London” were sufficiently different to outweigh the common suffix.
  • The term “Pride” is common and descriptive, lacking inherent distinctiveness.
  • The target consumers premium whisky buyers are presumed to exercise care in their purchases, further reducing risk of confusion.
• The Court reaffirmed the anti-dissection rule and the average consumer with imperfect recollection test.
• It stressed that common laudatory terms cannot be monopolized without compelling evidence of secondary meaning or distinctiveness.
• The plea was dismissed, and the Court directed the Commercial Court to conclude the trial on merits within four months.
• Pernod Ricard’s interim relief plea stands dismissed at all three levels Commercial Court, MP High Court, and now the Supreme Court.
• The matter now proceeds to full trial before the Commercial Court, where substantive evidence will be weighed before a final ruling.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------TOP

Prepared by : Drashti S. Varmora (Advocate)