On August 14, the Supreme Court dismissed an interim injunction sought by Pernod Ricard, which alleged that the country-made whisky “London Pride” infringed its registered whisky trademarks “Blenders Pride” and “Imperial Blue.”

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan held that the marks lacked deceptive similarity and were unlikely to mislead consumers in the premium whisky segment. The Court observed that purchasers of such products are generally more discerning and make choices with greater care, reducing the risk of confusion based on trade dress alone.

The ruling came in an appeal against decisions of the Indore Commercial Court and the Madhya Pradesh High Court, both of which had denied Pernod Ricard’s request for an interim injunction. The company had argued that “London Pride” borrowed the name style of “Blenders Pride” and the look of “Imperial Blue.”

However, the Supreme Court found the marks “Blenders Pride” and “London Pride” to be visually and phonetically distinct, noting that the term “Pride” is common in the liquor industry and therefore publici juris. The key elements—“Blenders,” “Imperial Blue,” and “London”—were entirely different, and their overall presentation created distinct impressions.

The Court clarified that deceptive similarity depends on whether an average consumer with imperfect recollection might associate the two marks, not on an exact side-by-side comparison. While copying a distinctive feature can still constitute infringement, the bench found no credible evidence of counterfeiting or deliberate imitation in this case.

The judges also criticized Pernod Ricard for combining unrelated elements from its two different marks to build its case, calling it a “hybrid and untenable” approach. They emphasized that each mark should be assessed separately and that cherry-picking generic or unregistered features is legally unsound.

Observing that packaging, typography, bottle design, and label layout were all materially different, the Court agreed with the MP High Court that the likelihood of confusion was minimal. The decision, the bench clarified, applies only to the interim injunction stage; the commercial trial will continue on its merits.

Case Title: Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra