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

p. 853

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

“Scotch” constitutes a protected geographical indication, the Court found that “Peter Scot” was a bona fide and honest adoption, not intended to exploit the reputation of Scotch whisky. Ultimately, it was held that no actionable confusion or deception had been proved, and accordingly, the injunction sought by the respondents was rightly declined. The decision reaffirms that the test of deceptive similarity must be applied holistically, having regard to the overall impression created by the mark, rather than focusing merely on phonetic or structural resemblance in isolation. The following paragraphs are pertinent in this regard: “75. The tests which are, therefore, required to be applied in each case would be different. Each word must be taken separately. They should be judged by their look and by their sound and must consider the goods to which they are to be applied. Nature and the kind of customers who would likely to buy goods must also be considered. Surrounding circumstances play an important factor. What would be likely to happen if each of those trademarks is used in a normal way as a trade mark of the goods of the respective owners of the marks would also be a relevant factor.

76. Thus, when and how a person would likely be confused is a very relevant consideration.

77. Where the class of buyers, as noticed hereinbefore, is quite educated and rich, the test to be applied is different from the one where the product would be purchased by the villagers, illiterate and poor. Ordinarily, again they, like tobacco, would purchase alcoholic beverages by their brand name. When, however, the product is to be purchased both by villagers and town people, the test of a prudent man would necessarily be applied. It may be true that the tests which are to be applied in a country like India may be different from the tests either in a country of England, the United States of America or Australia.

78. We however, do not mean to suggest that in a case of this nature, the Heightened Scrutiny Test should be applied as urged on behalf of the appellant. Bollinger, J. v. Costa Brava Wine Co. Ltd., whereupon

p. 854

Mr Desai has strongly relied upon, makes such a distinction. Bollinger, J. was a case on demurrer. It was concerned with sale of Spanish champagne. In that case, in para 4 of the application, the applicant stated: (All ER p. 804 B-C) “Then in Para 4 they deny that this name ‘Spanish Champagne’ is a false description, and they continue: ‘The defendants deny that the said section imposes any statutory duty on the defendants or any statutory duty owed by the defendants to the plaintiffs. Alternatively, if the said section does impose any such statutory duty the same is not actionable at the suit of any of the plaintiffs or at all.” The court proceeded on certain assumptions which are: (Bollinger case, All ER p. 804 F-G) “(1) The plaintiffs carry on business in a geographical area in France known as Champagne; (2) the plaintiffs’ wine is produced in Champagne and from grapes grown in Champagne; (3) the plaintiffs’ wine has been known in the trade for a long time as ‘Champagne’ with a high reputation; (4) members of the public or in the trade ordering or seeing wine advertised as ‘Champagne’ would expect to get wine produced in Champagne from grapes grown there; and (5) the defendants are producing a wine not produced in that geographical area and are selling it under the name of ‘Spanish Champagne’.” It was noticed: (Bollinger case, All ER p. 805 B-D) “The well-established action for ‘passing off’ involves the use of a name or get-up which is calculated to cause confusion with the goods of a particular rival trader, and I think it would be fair to say that the law in this respect has been concerned with unfair competition between traders rather than with the deception of the public which may be caused by the defendant’s conduct, for the right of action known

p. 855

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

as a ‘passing-off action’ is not an action brought by the member of the public who is deceived but by the trader whose trade is likely to suffer from the deception practised on the public but who is not himself deceived at all.” Before the learned Judge, the plaintiffs claimed that their goodwill in the name or description “champagne” is injured by the defendants’ conduct to which the counsel for the defendants did not contest the correctness of the statement. The learned Judge, referring to Mayor of Bradford v. Pickles and laying down the principles of injuries, noticed the argument of the counsel that before a person can negative the argument of the defence counsel, the person can recover for loss or it must be shown that his case falls within the class of actionable wrongs stating: (Bollinger cases, All ER p. 810H-I) “... But the law may be thought to have failed if it can offer no remedy for the deliberate act of one person which causes damage to the property of another. There are such cases, of course, but they occur, as a rule, when the claims of freedom of action outweigh the interests of the other persons who suffer from the use which a person makes of his own property.” It was in the aforementioned fact situation, the learned Judge proceeded to determine as to whether the description “Spanish champagne” is calculated to deceive, holding that the plaintiff has a right to bring any action. …

80. Referring to Kerly on Trade Marks, which we have referred to hereinbefore, the learned Judge said: [Bollinger (No. 2) case, All ER p. 566 E-F] And it has been said that regard should not be had to “unusually stupid people, fools or idiots”. Moreover, if the goods are expensive and not of a kind usually selected without deliberation and the customers generally educated persons these are all matters to

p. 856

be considered”. (That is also a quotation from the same book.) Various other judicial statements are collected in the judgment of the Assistant Registrar in George Angus & Co. -s Application, Re, RPC at pp. 31-32, to which I was referred. In arriving at the said decision, the following was specifically noticed (All ER p. 567 B -D) “Mr Munday, whose wine business was in Swansea, when asked-’How far do you think the class of customers that you deal with know the origin of Champagne?’ replied: ‘Limited. Some would know. The first category I mentioned would know a fair amount about it. In the second category some. But there would be a considerable number in my area who would know nothing about it except that it was a wine they wanted for a special occasion or for something in their life they wanted to celebrate with. They would then want that. That is how much they would know about it- just a general outline.’” It was furthermore held: [Bollinger (No. 2) case, All ER pp. 567 1-568 C] There is thus, in my view, a considerable body of evidence that persons whose life or education has not taught them much about the nature and production of wine, but who from time to time want to purchase Champagne, as the wine with the great reputation, are likely to be misled by the description “Spanish Champagne”. Something was said on the subject of the burden of proof. Well, burden of proof is something which may shift in the course of an action. It appears to me that when the plaintiffs have shown that a description used by the defendants contains an untruthful statement that a wine which is not Champagne is Champagne, they have gone some way to establishing their case, and the Court might require to be satisfied that such

p. 857

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

an untrue statement was so clearly qualified as to be not likely to mislead. But, however, that may be, I am satisfied on the evidence that a substantial portion of the public are likely to be misled. And as Lord Justice Lindley said in Slazenger & Sons v. Feltham & Co. 50, RPC at p. 537: “One must exercise one’s common sense, and, if you are driven to the conclusion that what is intended to be done is to deceive if possible, I do not think it is stretching the imagination very much to credit the man with occasional success or possible success. Why should we be astute to say that he cannot succeed in doing that which he is straining every nerve to do?”

81. The Bollinger test, 48 was not only applied in Warnink (Erven) BV v. J. 51 Townend & Sons (Hull) Ltd. but in all the cases which have been referred to by Mr Desai to which the different High Courts of India as also to which we have taken note of. However, tests laid down in Australia and the United States in respect of selfsame goods as noticed hereinbefore are somewhat different.

82. But then we are concerned with the class of buyer who is supposed to know the value of money, the quality and content of Scotch whisky. They are supposed to be aware of the difference of the process of manufacture, the place of manufacture and its origin. Respondent 3, the learned Single Judge as also the Division Bench of the High Court, therefore, failed to notice the distinction, which is real and otherwise borne out from the precedents operating in the field. (See Kerly’s Law of Trade Marks and Trade Names, 13th Edn., p. 600)

83. Had these tests been applied the matter might have been different. In a given case probably we would not have interfered but we intend to do so only because wrong tests applied led to a wrong result.

p. 858

84. So far as the applicability of the 1999 Act is concerned, having regard to the provisions of Sections 20(2) and 26(2), we are of the opinion that the 1999 Act will have no application.” 19.8. In Wander Ltd. v. Antox India (P) Ltd.19, this Court elaborated the principles governing the grant or refusal of interim injunctions in trademark infringement and passing off actions. It was underscored that appellate courts ought to be circumspect in interfering with the discretionary orders of lower courts in such matters. Interference is warranted only where the discretion has been exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, perversely, or in disregard of settled legal principles. The following paragraphs from the judgment are reproduced below for present purposes: “13. On a consideration of the matter, we are afraid, the appellate bench fell into error on two important propositions. The first is a misdirection in regard to the very scope and nature of the appeals before it and the limitations on the powers of the appellate court to substitute its own discretion in an appeal preferred against a discretionary order. The second pertains to the infirmities in the ratiocination as to the quality of Antox›s alleged user of the trademark on which the passing-off action is founded. We shall deal with these two separately.

14. The appeals before the Division Bench were against the exercise of discretion by the Single Judge. In such appeals, the appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion of the court of first instance and substitute its own discretion except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely or where the court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. An appeal against exercise of discretion is said to be an appeal on principle. Appellate court will not reassess the

19 (1990) Supp. SCC 727 : 1990 SCC OnLine SC 490

p. 859

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

material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the court below if the one reached by that court was reasonably possible on the material. The appellate court would normally not be justified in interfering with the exercise of discretion under appeal solely on the ground that if it had considered the matter at the trial stage it would have come to a contrary conclusion. If the discretion has been exercised by the trial court reasonably and in a judicial manner the fact that the appellate court would have taken a different view may not justify interference with the trial court’s exercise of discretion. After referring to these principles Gajendragadkar,J. in Printers (Mysore) Private Ltd. v. Pothan Joseph [(1960) 3 SCR 713 : AIR 1960 SC 1156] : (SCR 721) “... These principles are well established, but as has been observed by Viscount Simon in Charles Osenton & Co. v. Jhanaton [1942 AC 130] ‘...the law as to the reversal by a court of appeal of an order made by a judge below in the exercise of his discretion is well established, and any difficulty that arises is due only to the application of well settled principles in an individual case’.” The appellate judgment does not seem to defer to this principle. …. 19.9. In Anand Prasad Agarwalla v. Tarkeshwar Prasad and others20, this Court emphasized that while considering an application for a temporary injunction, the court must avoid conducting a mini-trial or delving into the merits of the case in detail. The exercise at that stage is limited to determining whether a prima facie case exists, along with considerations of balance of convenience and potential irreparable injury. The focus is not to adjudicate the ultimate rights of the parties. The relevant paragraph reads as under:

20 (2001) 5 SCC 568

p. 860

“6. It may not be appropriate for any court to hold a mini-trial at the stage of grant of temporary injunction. As noticed by the Division Bench that there are two documents which indicated that there was a prima facie case to be investigated. Unless the sale certificate is set aside or declared to be a nullity, the same has legal validity and force. It cannot be said that no right could be derived from such a certificate. Secondly, when the contesting respondents were in possession as evidenced by the record of rights, it cannot be said that such possession is by a trespasser. The claim of the contesting respondents is in their own right. The decisions referred to by the learned counsel for the appellant are in the context of there being no dispute as to ownership of the land and the possession was admittedly with a stranger and hence temporary injunction is not permissible. Therefore, we are of the view that the Division Bench has very correctly appreciated the matter and come to the conclusion in favour of the respondents. In these circumstances, we dismiss these appeals. We may notice that the time-bound directions issued by the Division Bench will have to be adhered to strictly by the parties concerned and the suits should be disposed of at an early date but not later than six months from the date of the communication of this order.” 19.10. In a more recent decision in Ramakant Ambalal Choksi Vs. Harish Ambalal Choksi and Others21, this Court reaffirmed the narrow scope of appellate interference with orders granting or refusing interlocutory injunctions. It was held that unless the discretion exercised by the trial court is shown to be perverse, arbitrary, or capricious, appellate courts ought not to substitute their views. The following paragraphs are relevant in this connection: “33. In the case of Anand Prasad Agarwal v. Tarkeshwar Prasad, (2001) 5 SCC 568, it was held

21 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3538

p. 861

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

by this Court that it would not be appropriate for any court to hold a mini-trial at the stage of grant of temporary injunction.

34. The burden is on the plaintiff, by evidence aliunde by affidavit or otherwise, to prove that there is “a prima facie case” in his favour which needs adjudication at the trial. The existence of the prima facie right and infraction of the enjoyment of his property or the right is a condition precedent for the grant of temporary injunction. Prima facie case is not to be confused with prima facie title which has to be established on evidence at the trial. Only prima facie case is a substantial question raised, bona fide, which needs investigation and a decision on merits. Satisfaction that there is a prima facie case by itself is not sufficient to grant injunction. The Court further has to satisfy that noninterference by the court would result in “irreparable injury” to the party seeking relief and that there is no other remedy available to the party except one to grant injunction and he needs protection from the consequences of apprehended injury or dispossession. Irreparable injury, however, does not mean that there must be no physical possibility of repairing the injury, but means only that the injury must be a material one, namely one that cannot be adequately compensated by way of damages. The third condition also is that “the balance of convenience” must be in favour of granting injunction. The Court while granting or refusing to grant injunction should exercise sound judicial discretion to find the amount of substantial mischief or injury which is likely to be caused to the parties, if the injunction is refused and compare it with that which is likely to be caused to the other side if the injunction is granted. If on weighing competing possibilities or probabilities of likelihood of injury and if the Court considers that pending the suit, the subject matter should be maintained in status quo, an injunction would be issued. Thus, the Court has

p. 862

to exercise its sound judicial discretion in granting or refusing the relief of ad interim injunction pending the suit. (See: Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh, (1992) 1 SCC 719.)”

VI. ANALYSIS

20. At the outset, we note that the present proceedings arise from an order passed by the High Court affirming the decision of the Commercial Court, which had rejected the appellants’ application for interim injunction. The main suit, being Civil Suit No. 3 of 2020 instituted by the appellants before the Commercial Court is still pending adjudication.

21. During the pendency of the suit, the appellants filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking an interim injunction to restrain the respondent from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, or otherwise dealing in whiskey under the trademark ‘LONDON PRIDE’, or any packaging or label bearing a trademark that is identical or deceptively similar to the appellants’ registered trademarks viz., ‘IMPERIAL BLUE’, ‘BLENDERS PRIDE’, or ‘SEAGRAM’S’, alleging infringement and passing off.

22. Upon a comparison of the rival marks, the Commercial Court found that the only common element was the word ‘PRIDE’, and that no other similarity was discernible. The packaging, style, bottle shape, and logos of the two brands were found to be entirely different. The Court also examined whether a consumer of the appellants’ product ‘BLENDERS PRIDE’ would likely be deceived by the respondent’s product ‘LONDON PRIDE’, and concluded that ‘PRIDE’ is a commonly used word in ordinary parlance, over which no exclusivity could be claimed. The bottles of the respective products were found to be clearly distinguishable. Since the appellants had not claimed a shape trademark, and the bottles generally adhered to standrad forms, no similarity could be drawn in that regard. The appellants’ bottle bore the embossing ‘SEAGRAM QUALITY’, and the labels of the competing products carried distinct names and logos. No imitation capable of misleading consumers was found in the respondent’s product. Moreover, the bottle produced by the appellants during the hearing did not bear any such embossed mark. Accoridngly, the Court held that the appellants had failed to establish a prima facie case, and that the balance of convenience did not favour them. Dismissing

p. 863

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

the application for interim injunction, the Court held that the mere use of the word ‘PRIDE’ by the respondent could not amount to imitation of the appellants’ trademarks. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants preferred an appeal before the High Court.

23. The High Court, upon consideration of the material on record, concurred with the findings of the Commercial Court and held that the respondent’s use of the word ‘PRIDE’ was unlikely to mislead or confuse a consumer of average intelligence. Products such as those in question are generally identified and purchased by their complete names, or more commonly, by their first words. In the appellants’ trademark, the first word is ‘BLENDERS’, whereas in the respondent’s mark, it is ‘LONDON’. There is absolutely no similarity between the two. The Court further held that ‘PRIDE’ is a generic, commonly used, and laudatory expression. It concluded that the dominant part of the appellants’ mark is ‘BLENDERS’. A comparison between ‘IMPERIAL BLUE’ and ‘LONDON PRIDE’ was found to be wholly irrelevant, as the marks are entirely dissimilar. Accordingly, there could be no likelihood of confusion or deception in the mind of a reasonable consumer. The Court also noted that the word ‘PRIDE’ is publici juris, common to the trade, and cited the existence of 48 other trademarks containing the word ‘PRIDE’ registered under Classes 32 and 33, many of which are also registered with the Excise Authorities for sale of liquor. Therefore, the appellants could not claim exclusive rights over the ‘PRIDE’ component of their marks.

24. The High Court further observed that the competing trademarks related to ‘premium’ or ‘ultra-premium’ whiskey, and that consumers of such products can reasonably be presumed to be literate and possess sufficient intelligence to distinguish between ‘BLENDERS PRIDE/IMPERIAL BLUE’ and ‘LONDON PRIDE’. Even consumers of average intelligence with imperfect recollection would be able to differentiate between the rival brands. The High Court affirmed the Commercial Court’s finding that there was no deceptive similarity in the respondent’s mark that could constitute imitation of the appellants’ trademarks. The High Court found no infirmity in the conclusions drawn by the Commercial Court and dismissed the appeal. It directed the Commercial Court to proceed with the trial of the suit on merits and to dispose it of expeditiously – preferably within nine months of receipt of the certified copy of the High Court’s order – without being influenced by any observations made in the course of interlocutory

p. 864

proceedings. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants have preferred the present appeal before this Court.

25. The principal contention advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants is that the appellants’ registered trademarks ought to have been compared with the respondent’s mark in their entirety, rather than by isolating individual components to assess visual, phonetic, or structural similarity. However, the Commercial Court erroneously dissected the word ‘PRIDE’ from the appellants’ registered trademark ‘BLENDERS PRIDE’, and based its comprison primarily on that isolated element. Such dissection is impermissible under Section 28(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. According to the learned Senior Counsel, these settled principles are equally applicable at the interlocutory stage while adjudicating an application for interim relief. 25.1. It is further contended that the comparison should have been conducted from the standpoint of an average consumer with imperfect recollection. A holistic comparison of the products reveals that essential features – such as the bottle shape, label structure, and the distinctive colour combination of dark blue, light blue, and gold – are deceptively similar and likely to cause confusion. However, the Commercial Court erroneously presumed that purchasers of premium and ultra-premium whisky are discerning and unlikely to be misled. 25.2. It is also submitted that the respondent has dishonestly adopted the essential and distinctive elements of the appellants’ registered trademarks. Such conduct amounts to an actionable tort and warrants the grant of an interim injunction, even in the absence of further proof of passing off.

26. On the other hand, the respondent contends that there is no similarity between the competing marks that could mislead or confuse a consumer. Both parties sell their products in boxed packaging, and a comparison of the respective boxes reveals no resemblance likely to mislead an ordinary purchaser. The colour scheme, typography, headings, logos, and other features are entirely distinct and dissimilar. Not only are the essential features different, but the overall visual impression conveyed by the products is also substantially dissimilar. Moreover, the respondent asserts that no exclusive proprietary right can be claimed over the word ‘PRIDE’ which is a common, laudatory term found in every dictionary and widely used in ordinary parlance.

p. 865

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

27. As we have seen above, the law is no longer res integra. At this stage, a comparative visual analysis of the competing trademarks is warranted to determine whether the respondent’s mark bears any deceptive similarity to the appellants’ registered trademarks, so as to mislead or confuse an average consumer, by juxtaposing the facts with the settled legal position. The competing marks are:

p. 866

28. In support of their claim, the appellants in their affidavit, highlighted the following overall similarities between their three registered trademarks and the respondent’s mark: (i) The shape of the bottles is identical. (ii) The shape of the “dome structure” used in the label on the box and bottle is identical. (iii) The color combination used on the label and packaging includes dark blue, light blue, golden and white. (iv) The names of the brands (IMPERIAL BLUE v LONDON PRIDE) in both cases, are written in white against a dark blue background, within an identically shaped dome. (v) The trademark name is written in white lettering below the emblem, with “BLUE” centered below “IMPERIAL” and “PRIDE” centered below “LONDON.” (vi) The outer packaging features thick golden borders, and the inside of the packaging is dark blue. (vii) The top-middle section of the label contains an emblem— Seagram’s Crest Device in gold for Imperial Blue and a lion’s face device in gold for London Pride.

p. 867

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

28.1. In particular, with respect to the label and logo, the appellants allege the following deceptive similarities: (i) The color combination of dark blue, light blue, and gold is used in both labels and packaging. (ii) The textual content on both logos is rendered in white. (iii) The outer packaging in both cases features thick golden borders with a dark blue background.

29. Before delving further, it is important to note that a passing off action is a common law remedy designed to protect the goodwill and reputation of a trader against misrepresentation by another, which causes or is likely to cause confusion among consumers. As observed by James L.J, in Singer Manufacturing Co v. loog,22 “no man is entitled to represent his goods as being the goods of another man”. A passing off action applies to both registered and unregistered marks, and is rooted in the principle that one trader should not unfairly benefit from the reputation built by another. In contrast, an action for trademark infringement is a statutory remedy under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 available only in relation to registered trademarks. It is intended to safeguard the exclusive proprietary rights that registration confers. 29.1. 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. 29.2. While an intent to deceive is not a necessary element in either action, passing off requires proof of a likelihood of confusion or deception. It is well settled that actual deception or damage need not be proved – the test is whether confusion is probable

22 1880 18 Ch.D. 395, p.412

p. 868

in the mind of the average consumer due to the similarity in the marks or the overall get-up of the goods. 29.3. 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. 29.4. 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. 29.5. Thus, 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.

APPLICABILITY OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES

30. We shall now proceed to apply the legal principles governing trademark infringement and passing off to the facts of the present case, in order to determine whether the respondent’s mark is deceptively similar to the appellants’ registered trademarks.

(A) SIMILARITY AND DISTINCTIVENESS: NAME, COLOUR SCHEME, AND TRADE DRESS

31. Trademark protection – whether based on name, colour combination, trade dress, or structural features – centres on a mark’s ability to distinguish the commercial origin of goods or services in the minds of consumers. The likelihood of confusion remains the cornerstone of both infringement and passing off actions. 31.1. A registered trademark is infringed when a person, in the course of trade, uses a mark that is identical or deceptively

p. 869

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

similar to a registered trademark in relation to similar goods or services. Section 2(1)(h) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 defines ‘deceptively similar’ to mean ‘a mark shall be deemed to be deceptively similar to another mark if it so nearly resembles that other mark as to be likely to deceive or cause confusion’. 31.2. Whether a trade mark is likely to deceive or cause confusion is a question of fact. Courts have consistently held that the broad and essential features of the rival marks must be considered. The assessment focuses on visual appearance, phonetic similarity, the nature of the goods, the class of purchasers, and the manner of sale. 31.3. As held in Parker – Knoll Ltd v. Knoll International Ltd.23, proof of an intention to deceive is not required; a likelihood of confusion is sufficient to establish infringement or passing off. The evaluation must be made from the standpoint of an average consumer with imperfect recollection, emphasizing the overall commercial impression rather than engaging in a minute or mechanical comparison. 31.4. The strength of a trademark lies in its inherent distinctiveness or the distinctiveness acquired through use. Invented or coined marks – such as Kodak or Solio – are inherently distinctive and command the highest degree of protection. These marks immediately signify the commercial origin of the goods or services. In contrast, descriptive marks – such as Air India, Mother Dairy, HMT, Windows, Doordarshan, LIC, and SBI – are not inherently distinctive and must acquire secondary meaning in the minds of the public to qualify for protection. That is, the public must come to associate the mark with a particular source. Similarly, geographical terms like Simla or Liverpool, or generic trade terms, are generally not registrable unless they have acquired distinctiveness through long and exclusive use. The more distinctive a mark – whether inherently or through acquired reputation – the stronger its position in infringement or passing off actions.

23 1962 RPC 265

p. 870

31.5. In the case of composite marks – those contained multiple elements, such as words and logos – the overall impression created by the mark is relevant. However, proprietors cannot claim exclusive rights over individual components, particularly, non-distinctive or descriptive elements. Courts have often required disclaimers of such generic parts at the time of registration. For instance, in Tungabhadra Industries Ltd v. Registrar of Trade Marks24, the registration of “Diamond T” in a diamond-shaped logo was granted, but the word “Diamond” was required to be disclaimed due to its non-distinctiveness. 31.6. Short marks, especially those consisting of two-letter or minimal-character combinations, are treated cautiously. These are often considered non-distinctive, because they tend to resemble abbreviations, product codes, or alphanumeric references – especially in industries such as textiles, chemicals and machinery. Unless secondary meaning is clearly demonstrated, such marks may be refused registration. However, courts have recognized exceptions for arbitrary or invented short marks that are not commonly used in the relevant trade – particularly in sectors like food and beverages, where even brief combinations can act as unique identifiers of origin. 31.7. Colour combinations are treated similarly to single colours combined with other distinctive elements. A specific combination of colours may be prima facie registrable depending on its manner of presentation. For example, colours used within a defined geometric shape may qualify for registration. Where colours are applied to packaging or labels, the burden of proving acquired distinctiveness is higher. In such cases, the proprietor must show that the colour scheme functions as a badge of origin. Ultimately, trademark law seeks to protect indicators of source – both inherently and through acquired distinctiveness – which were previously protectable only through the more demanding process of a passing off action. 31.8. Trade dress, encompassing the overall visual appearance of a product – including packaging, layout, colour schemes,

24 AIR 1959 SC 989

p. 871

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

and graphics – also enjoys protection. Indian courts have recognized that a deceptively similar trade dress, even in the absence of a word mark, may mislead consumers and constitute passing off, particularly where visual cues trigger brand association and market confusion. 31.9. Applying the foregoing principles to the present case, we are not persuaded that the respondent’s mark is deceptively similar to the appellants’ registered trademarks, when viewed in totality. The appellants’ marks – ‘BLENDERS PRIDE’, ‘IMPERIAL BLUE’, and ‘SEAGRAM’S’ – are inherently distinctive. By contrast, the respondent’s mark ‘LONDON PRIDE’ uses the term ‘PRIDE’ in a distinct commercial context and overall presentation. The term ‘PRIDE’ being a common and laudatory expression, cannot be claimed exclusively in isolation. Although both parties’ trade dress and colour schemes feature elements of blue and gold, such similarities are insufficient to establish deceptive similarity. The placement of elements, design of labels, font styles, and emblems differ in material respects. Viewed holistically, the competing marks do not create such an overall resemblance as is likely to cause confusion or deception in the mind of an average consumer exercising imperfect recollection.

(B) RULE OF ANTI-DISSECTION

32. A foundational principle in trademark law is that marks must be compared as a whole, and not by dissecting them into individual components. This is known as the anti-dissection rule, which reflects the real-world manner in which consumers perceive trademarks – based on their overall impression, encompassing appearance, sound, structure, and commercial impression. In Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navratna Pharmaceuticals Laboratories (supra), this Court underscored that the correct test for trademark infringement is whether, when considered in its entirety, the defendant’s mark is deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s registered mark. The Court expressly cautioned against isolating individual parts of a composite mark, as such an approach disregard how consumers actually experience and recall trademarks. 32.1. While Section 17 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 restricts exclusive rights to the trademark as a whole and does not

p. 872

confer protection over individual, non-distinctive components per se, courts may still identify dominant or essential features within a composite mark to assess the likelihood of confusion. However, this does not permit treating such features in isolation; rather, they must be evaluated in the context of the overall commercial impression created by the mark. 32.2. This approach finds further support in the observations of scholars such as McCarthy in Trademarks and Unfair Competition, who note that consumers seldom engage in detailed, analytical comparisons of competing marks. Purchasing decisions are instead based on imperfect recollection and the general impression created by a mark’s sight, sound, and structure. The anti-dissection rule thus aligns the legal test for infringement with the actual behaviour and perception of consumers in the marketplace. 32.3. Consequently, in disputes involving composite marks, the mere presence of a shared or generic word in both marks does not, by itself, justify a finding of deceptive similarity. Courts must undertake a holistic comparison examining visual, phonetic, structural, and conceptual elements, to assess whether the overall impression created by the rival marks is likely to mislead an average consumer of ordinary intelligence and imperfect memory. If the marks, viewed in totality, convey distinct identities, the use of a common element – particularly if it is descriptive or laudatory – will not by itself amount to infringement. 32.4. In the present case, 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.

p. 873

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

(C) DOMINANT FEATURE TEST

33. In determining whether a mark is deceptively similar to another, courts often consider the dominant feature of the mark – that is, the element which is most distinctive, memorable, and likely to influence consumer perception. While the anti-dissection rule requires marks to be compared in their entirety, courts may still place emphasis on certain prominent or distinguishing elements, especially where such features significantly contribute to the overall commercial impression of the mark. 33.1. The principles of the anti-dissection rule and the dominant feature test, though seemingly in tension, are not mutually exclusive. Identifying a dominant feature can serve as an analytical aid in the holistic comparison of marks. In certain cases, an infringing component may overshadow the remainder of the mark to such an extent that confusion or deception becomes virtually inevitable. In such instances, courts – while maintaining a contextual and fact-specific inquiry – may justifiably assign greater weight to the dominant element. However, emphasis on a dominant feature alone cannot be determinative; the ultimate test remains whether the mark, viewed as a whole, creates a deceptive similarity likely to mislead an average consumer of ordinary intelligence and imperfect recollection. 33.2. An analogy that aptly illustrates the significance of a dominant element in a composite mark is that of mixing milk and water. If a small quantity of milk is added to a half-glass of water, the mixture becomes cloudy – the change is perceptible, but the dominant character remains watery. Conversely, if the same amount of water is added to a half-glass of milk, the result still appears to be milk – the dilution is imperceptible. Though the components are the same, the perceptual impact differs, depending on which element dominates. Similarly, in trademark analysis, the presence of common elements across marks does not automatically indicate a likelihood of confusion. What matters is the relative prominence and distinctiveness of the elements. Just as the milk in the second example visually and qualitatively overwhelms the water, a dominant feature in a mark can subsume other components and shape consumer perception. Therefore, while assessing deceptive similarity,

p. 874

due weight must be given to the dominant element, without disregarding the composite nature of the mark. 33.3. The dominant feature of a mark is typically identified based on factors such as its visual and phonetic prominence, placement within the mark (with initial components often carrying greater perceptual weight), inherent distinctiveness, and the degree of consumer association it has generated. The dominant element functions as the “hook” that captures the consumer’s attention and facilitates brand recall. For instance, in composite marks such as ‘BLENDERS PRIDE’ or ‘IMPERIAL BLUE’, the terms ‘BLENDERS’ and ‘IMPERIAL’ may be regarded as dominant, owing to their distinctive and less frequently used character. In contrast, elements such as ‘PRIDE’ or ‘BLUE’ are relatively generic, descriptive, or commonplace in the liquor industry, as evidenced by other marks like ROCKFORD PRIDE, ROYAL PRIDE, or OAK PRIDE. Such shared or non-distinctive terms cannot be monopolized, unless it is established that they have acquired secondary meaning through extensive and exclusive use, and are uniquely associated with the plaintiff’s goods in the minds of the public. 33.4. In the present case, the appellants contend that the respondent’s use of the mark ‘LONDON PRIDE’ infringes their marks ‘BLENDERS PRIDE’ and ‘IMPERIAL BLUE’. However, 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. As such, there exists no real likelihood of confusion or false association in the mind of an average consumer exercising ordinary caution and imperfect recollection.

(D) NO EXCLUSIVE RIGHT OVER COMMON OR DESCRIPTIVE TERMS

34. It is a well-established principle of trademark law that generic, descriptive, or laudatory terms – particularly those commonly used in

p. 875

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

a given trade – cannot be monopolized by any one proprietor. Even where such terms form part of a registered trademark, protection does not extend to those elements per se unless it is affirmatively shown that they have acquired secondary meaning – i.e., that the term has come to be exclusively and distinctively associated with the plaintiff’s goods in the perception of the consuming public. 34.1. In Godfrey Philips India Ltd v. Girnar Food & Beverages Pvt. Ltd.25, this Court unequivocally held that descriptive words denoting the character or quality of goods are not capable of exclusive appropriation, except where they have acquired distinctiveness through prolonged, continuous, and exclusive use. 34.2. The word ‘PRIDE’ is a laudatory and commonly used English term, typically employed to suggest notions of excellence, heritage, or national identity. Within the alcoholic beverages industry, it is extensively used as part of various trademarks. Judicial notice may be taken of multiple registrations under Class 33 – such as McDowell’s Pride, Highland Pride, Royal Pride, and Pride of India – all incorporating the term ‘PRIDE’. This widespread usage illustrates that the word is publici juris, not inherently distinctive, and therefore incapable of exclusive appropriation in the absence of compelling evidence of secondary meaning. 34.3. The appellants’ mark ‘BLENDERS PRIDE’ is a composite trademark, comprising the suggestive term ‘BLENDERS’ – alluding to the craft of blending spirits – and the laudatory word ‘PRIDE’. By contrast, the respondent’s mark ‘LONDON PRIDE’, couples a geographical term with the same non-distinctive word ‘PRIDE’. The mere presence of a shared generic or descriptive element is insufficient, by itself, to support a claim of deceptive similarity. 34.4. In Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (supra), this Court reaffirmed that deceptive similarity must be assessed holistically, taking into account factors such as the nature of the marks, the class of purchasers, mode of

25 (2004) 5 SCC 257

p. 876

purchase, and the overall circumstances surrounding the trade. 34.5. In the present case, the appellants have failed to produce cogent evidence – such as consumer surveys, brand recognition studies, or consistent third-party references – to demonstrate that the term ‘PRIDE’ has acquired secondary meaning exclusively pointing to their product. Mere duration of use, turnover, or marketing expenditure is insufficient to displace the term’s inherent descriptive or laudatory character. As judicial precedent makes clear, even extensive use of a descriptive term does not justify exclusivity unless such use has displaced the word’s primary meaning, so that it now serves as a source identifier in the minds of the consuming public. 34.6. Applying the settled legal principles, 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’, and no actionable similarity arises merely from its use in the respondent’s mark. In the absence of demonstrable confusion or misrepresentation, the respondent’s use does not amount to infringement under Section 29 nor does it constitute passing off.

(E) AV E R A G E C O N S U M E R T E S T A N D I M P E R F E C T RECOLLECTION

table as extracted; see Source PDF

35. The average consumer test is a central standard in trademark and unfair competition law. It assesses whether there exists a likelihood of confusion between two marks, or whether a mark lacks distinctiveness or is merely descriptive. The test is grounded in the perception of the average consumer – a person who is reasonably well-informed, observant, and circumspect, but not an expert or overly analytical. As held by the European Court of Justice in Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer v. Klijsen Handel BV26, the average consumer forms an overall impression of a mark rather than dissecting it into individual components.

26 Case C-342/97; [2000] F.S.R. 77, ECJ

p. 877

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

35.1. A key feature of this test is the recognition that consumers rarely recall trademarks with perfect accuracy. For example, this Court in Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satyadeo Gupta (supra) emphasized that the comparison must be made from the perspective of a person of average intelligence and imperfect recollection. Thus, minor phonetic or visual similarities may cause confusion if the marks share prominent or memorable features. The test also considers that the degree of consumer attentiveness may vary depending on the nature of the goods: greater care may be exercised when purchasing luxury items than in the case of everyday consumer goods. 35.2. The test is equally relevant to both inherent and acquired distinctiveness. A mark has inherent distinctiveness if, by its very form and appearance, it identifies trade origin to the average consumer at the time of registration. A mark may acquire distinctiveness if, through consistent and prolonged use, it becomes associated by a significant portion of the relevant public with a particular commercial source – even if the consumer cannot name the source precisely. What matters is not that the consumer knows the producer, but that the mark serves as an indicator of origin. 35.3. However, the test has limitations. In cases involving product shapes or designs, where the features serve a technical function or add substantial value, policy considerations may override consumer perception. While the average consumer may identify the essential characteristics of a product’s shape or configuration, their opinion is not determinative in assessing registrability, especially where legal prohibitions against functional or aesthetic monopolies come into play. 35.4. The doctrine of imperfect recollection, closely linked to the average consumer test, emphasizes the importance of first impression. Courts have cautioned against overly technical or granular comparisons of trademarks [See: James Crossley Eno v. William George Dunn27 and Aristoc Ltd v. Rysta Ltd,28]. Instead, they have favoured realistic assessments that

p. 878

account for hazy memory, indistinct pronunciation, and fleeting visual impressions. Notably, invented or fanciful words are generally more difficult to recall than common or descriptive ones, and distinctive features are more likely to be retained in the consumer’s memory. 35.5. The foundational test for assessing deceptive similarity remains the Pianotist Test, as laid down in Pianotist Co. Ltd’s Application29 by Justice Parker. Indian courts continue to apply this holistic standard, which requires consideration of the visual and phonetic similarity of the marks, the nature of the goods, the class of consumers, and all surrounding circumstances. Justice Parker framed the test as follows: “You must take the two words. You must judge of them, both by their look and by their sound. You must consider the goods to which they are applied, the nature and kind of customer who would be likely to buy the goods, and all the surrounding circumstances. You must further consider what is likely to happen if each of these trademarks is used in a normal way for the respective goods. If, considering all these circumstances, you come to the conclusion that there will be confusion – not necessarily that one trader will be passed off as another – but that there will be confusion in the mind of the public leading to confusion in the goods, then registration must be refused.” 35.6. This multifactorial framework complements the modern average consumer test, ensuring that the analysis of deceptive similarity remains practical and context-sensitive. It focuses on the overall commercial impression left by the marks, rather than conducting a mechanical or analytical breakdown. Indian courts have consistently adopted this approach in determining the likelihood of confusion in both infringement and passing off actions. 35.7. Applying these principles, it becomes evident that the rival marks are not deceptively similar. The appellants’ trademarks – ‘BLENDERS PRIDE’, ‘IMPERIAL BLUE’, and ‘SEAGRAM’S’ –

29 (1906) 23 RPC 774 at p. 777

p. 879

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

convey distinct commercial impressions, when compared with the respondent’s mark ‘LONDON PRIDE’. The overall visual appearance, phonetic structure, and trade dress – though sharing some generic elements such as use of blue and gold – are sufficiently different. These structural and conceptual dissimilarities between the marks outweigh any incidental similarities, negating the likelihood of confusion in the mind of a consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection.

(F) LEGAL PRINCIPLES GOVERNING GRANT OF INJUNCTION

36. The Trade Marks Act, 1999 does not prescribe any rigid or exhaustive criteria for determining whether a mark is likely to deceive or cause confusion. Each case must necessarily be decided on its own facts and circumstances, with judicial precedents serving to illuminate the applicable tests and guiding principles rather than to dictate outcomes. 36.1. 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 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. In appropriate cases, the court may mould relief in passing off so as to permit continued use by the defendant, provided it does not result in misrepresentation or deception. 36.2. 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. As judicially observed, “the life of a trademark depends upon the promptitude with which it is vindicated.” 36.3. The principles laid down in American Cyanamid Co. v. Ethicon Ltd30 continue to guide the Courts while determining

p. 880

interim injunction applications in trademark cases. The following criteria are generally applied: (i) Serious question to be tried / triable issue: The plaintiff must show a genuine and substantial question fit for trial. It is not necessary to establish a likelihood of success at this stage, but the claim must be more than frivolous, vexatious or speculative. (ii) Likelihood of confusion / deception: Although a detailed analysis of merits is not warranted at the interlocutory stage, courts may assess the prima facie strength of the case and the probability of consumer confusion or deception. Where the likelihood of confusion is weak or speculative, interim relief may be declined at the threshold. (iii) Balance of convenience: The court must weigh the inconvenience or harm that may result to either party from the grant or refusal of injunction. If the refusal would likely result in irreparable harm to the plaintiff’s goodwill or mislead consumers, the balance of convenience may favor granting the injunction. (iv) Irreparable harm: Where the use of the impugned mark by the defendant may lead to dilution of the plaintiff’s brand identity, loss of consumer goodwill, or deception of the public – harms which are inherently difficult to quantify – the remedy of damages may be inadequate. In such cases, irreparable harm is presumed. (v) Public interest: In matters involving public health, safety, or widely consumed goods, courts may consider whether the public interest warrants injunctive relief to prevent confusion or deception in the marketplace. 36.4. In conclusion, the grant of an 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.

p. 881

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

37. Earlier, the appellants were unsuccessful in asserting a similar claim regarding the use of the word ‘Pride’. In Pernod Ricard India (P) Ltd. v. United Spirits Ltd.31 the appeal arose from the dismissal of an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, wherein the appellant, Pernod Richard India Private Ltd, had sought an interim injunction restraining United Spirits Ltd from using the mark “Royal Challenge American Pride”. By order dated 17.01.2022, the commercial court rejected the appellant’s plea. The Punjab and Haryana High Court vide its judgment dated 21.03.2023 upheld the commercial court’s decision and dismissed the appeal. The court held that the appellant had no independent registration over the word ‘pride’, but only over the composite mark ‘Blenders Pride’. Consequently, no exclusive or enforceable rights could be claimed in respect of the standalone word ‘Pride’. Further, the Court observed that since the appellant had failed to raise any objection at the stage of registration of the rival mark before the Registrar of Trade Marks, it was estopped from doing so at a later stage. The following paragraphs from the High Court’s decision are pertinent in this regard: “24. Learned counsel for the respondent has summarised his arguments on the following issues: 24.3. Estoppel The admissions made by the appellant-plaintiff before the Registry, especially when the appellant is claiming a right at the time of registration is important and will debar the appellant-plaintiff from any relief and if not disclosed in the plaint, amounts to material concealment. The reply of the plaintiff at the time of registration of its mark, in response to the objection raised by the Registrar, in which the plaintiff gave up any right over the word “Pride” and rather claimed right over “BLENDER’S” is an important factor. The relevant portion of plaintiff’s reply in respect of their own admission and claim is reproduced below: “We submit that the subject mark is a unique combination of word BLENDER’S and PRIDE which in combination or in isolation have no reference whatsoever with the goods for which registration is sought by the applicants.”

31 2023 SCC OnLine P&H 477 : (2023) 3 RCR (Civil) 162

p. 882

“…We further submit that it is a well-settled principle that the marks have to be compared in entirety and should not be dissected into separate components for the sake of comparison.” Further plaintiff in respect to different marks containing PRIDE inter alia gave the following reply: “Mcdowell’s Pride When compared as a whole, the cited mark Mcdowell’s pride is phonetically, visually as well structurally dissimilar and distinguishable from the subject mark.”

34. Accordingly, considering the matter from the factual as well as legal aspect and by applying the ratio of judgments and taking into consideration the provisions of law and applicable to the facts of the present appeal, the bone of contention revolves around primarily the two trade marks i.e. “Blenders Pride” on one hand owned by the appellant and “Royal Challenge American Pride”, a trade mark duly registered by the respondents on the other hand are on loggerheads. In the light of the express provisions whereby the trade mark or a part of trade mark has been infringed, it is a requirement of law as per Sections 15 and 17 of the Act that the part of the trade mark has to be registered separately and admittedly in the present case, the appellant is holder of the registered trade mark titled “Blenders Pride” collectively, and, therefore, the entire thrust of the argument and the case built up by the appellant that there is infringement by the respondents is only on the basis of a common word “Pride”. At the outset, in the absence of any registration of the word “Pride” independently and separately, disentitles the appellant to any stay qua the same. Further the act and conduct of the appellant also demonstrates that they themselves have foregone their right and have never objected to the use of the word “Pride” separately. Reliance has been placed on multiple litigations especially the one before the Delhi High Court passed in Reddys Laboratories Ltd. v. Controller, Trade Marks [Reddys Laboratories Ltd. v. Controller, Trade Marks, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 813] , which the appellant consented and did not raise any objection.

p. 883

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

39. it is too far stretch at the behest of the appellant that by use of word “Pride”, there could be any misconception or dilution in the mind of the common man on the street, who is the ultimate consumer, which would lead to any confusion. The said parameter having not been met, the appellant ahs failed to demonstrate as to how he is facing any irreparable loss or injury which could not be compensated in terms of money and as to how the balance of convenience lies in its favour. Both the companies are well reputed and well established in their field and are rather competitors. The similarities of the single word cannot be taken as an infringement and/or passing off and, hence, we do not find any merit in the present appeal and in fact, any interim relief granted to the appellant will adversely affect the open market and might lead to monopolistic trade activity by the appellant.

40. Accordingly, the present appeal stands dismissed.” 37.1. The appellant thereafter challenged the decision of the High Court by filing Special Leave Petition (C) No. 17674/2023 before this Court. The SLP was dismissed by order dated 06.09.2023, wherein, the Court declined to interfere, observing as follows: “After hearing learned counsel for the parties at length, the impugned orders being concurrent which is for the purposes of determination of interim arrangement pending suit cannot in any manner influence the final determination of the suit, we would not like to interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. However, we find that the suit is at an initial stage for almost 3 years and in a suit of this nature even issues have not been framed. On our query, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are only two witnesses to be examined and so is the position with the respondent. The aforesaid being the position, we are of the view that from the stage of framing of issues to such a trial and arguments, it should not take more than six months to complete the trial proceedings. We order accordingly.

p. 884

The concerned District Judge, Mohali to proceed with the suit accordingly. At the insistence of counsel for the petitioner, we clarify that it is well settled proposition of law that decisions on interlocutory applications are only made to protect rival interests pending suit. Somehow the interim applications itself are treated as final decision but it is not so. In all such cases, interim arrangements should be made and the trial should proceed rather than to spend time only on interlocutory applications. That protects the petitioner against the apprehension that the impugned judgment may be cited in other Court qua petitioner’s cases of a similar nature. Needless to say that the trial Court will not be influenced at the stage of final decision based on evidence recorded with the observations at the interlocutory stage whether of the trial Court or the High Court. The special leave petition is dismissed.”

38. In Bajaj Auto Ltd v. TVS Motor Co. Ltd32, this Court expressed grave concern over the inordinate delays in the adjudication of intellectual property disputes in India. It observed that litigation in matters involving copyright, trademarks, and patents is often prolonged, with the real contest revolving around interim injunctions, while final adjudication remains elusive for years. Terming this as an unsatisfactory state of affairs, the Court emphasized the need for time-bound disposal of such cases. It accordingly, directed that final judgment in IP matters should ordinarily be delivered within four months of filing the suit, with hearings conducted on a day to-day basis. The following paragraphs are pertinent in this context: “3. It is evident that the suit is still pending before the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court. We are unhappy that the matter has been pending in the High Court at the interlocutory stage for such a long time as the suit was filed in December 2007 and yet even written statement has not been filed.

32 (2009) 9 SCC 797

p. 885

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

4. Recently, we have held in Shree Vardhman Rice & General Mills v. Amar Singh Chawalwala [(2009) 10 SCC 257] as follows: “… Without going into the merits of the controversy, we are of the opinion that the matters relating to trade marks, copyrights and patents should be finally decided very expeditiously by the trial court instead of merely granting or refusing to grant injunction. Experience shows that in the matters of trade marks, copyrights and patents, litigation is mainly fought between the parties about the temporary injunction and that goes on for years and years and the result is that the suit is hardly decided finally. This is not proper. Proviso (a) to Order 17 Rule 1(2) CPC states that when the hearing of the suit has commenced, it shall be continued from day-to-day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined, unless the court finds that, for exceptional reasons to be recorded by it the adjournment of the hearing beyond the following day is necessary. The court should also observe clauses (b) to (e) of the said proviso. In our opinion, in matters relating to trade marks, copyright and patents the proviso to Order 17 Rule 1(2) CPC should be strictly complied with by all the courts, and the hearing of the suit in such matters should proceed on day-to-day basis and the final judgment should be given normally within four months from the date of the filing of the suit.” As has been observed by us in the aforesaid case, experience has shown that in our country, suits relating to the matters of patents, trade marks and copyrights are pending for years and years and litigation is mainly fought between the parties about the temporary injunction. This is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs, and hence we had passed the abovequoted order in the abovementioned case to serve the ends of justice. We direct that the directions in the aforesaid order be carried out by all courts and tribunals in this country punctually and faithfully.

5. In the present case, although arguments were advanced at some length by the learned counsel for both the parties,

p. 886

we are of the opinion that instead of deciding the case at the interlocutory stage, the suit itself should be disposed of finally at a very early date. Hence, without going into the merits of the controversy, we direct the respondent- defendant to file written statement in the suit, if not already filed, on or before the last date for closing of the Madras High Court for Dussehra holidays. We would request the learned Single Judge who is trying the suit to commence the hearing of the suit on the reopening of the Madras High Court after Dussehra holidays and then carry it on a day-to-day basis. No adjournment whatsoever ordinarily will be granted and the suit shall be finally disposed of on or before 30-11-2009.”

39. We have carefully examined the judicial precedents both in support of and against the grant of interim injunctions in actions for trademark infringement and passing off. These authorities also delineate the limited scope of appellate interference with the discretionary findings of the trial Court on such applications. We are in respectful agreement with the principles enunciated in the aforementioned decisions. Applying these settled principles to the facts of the present case, we are of the considered view that the rival marks, when assessed in their entirety, do not exhibit such visual, phonetic, or structural similarity as would give rise to a real and tangible likelihood of confusion in the mind of an average consumer possessing imperfect recollection. The overall trade dress, distinctive components, and market presentation of the respondent’s product serve to sufficiently distinguish it from that of the appellants. Accordingly, the allegation of deceptive similarity is not borne out on a prima facie assessment, and no case is made out warranting the grant of interim relief.

VIII. RECENT EVOLUTION OF TRADEMARK JURISPRUDENCE IN THE UK – THE POST-SALE CONFUSION DOCTRINE

40. The recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in Iconix Luxembourg Holdings SARL (Respondent) v Dream Pairs Europe Inc and another (Appellants)33 marks a significant development in trademark jurisprudence, particularly concerning the

33 [2025] UKSC 25

p. 887

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

principle of post-sale confusion. The judgment not only reaffirms the established principles governing similarity of marks and likelihood of confusion, but also reinforces the appellate standard of review regarding findings of fact by a trial Court.

Scope of appellate review 40.1. While rejecting the appellants’ contentions, the Supreme Court restored the findings of the High Court (trial Court), emphatically reaffirming the well settled legal principle that an appellate court cannot substitute its own findings merely because it may have arrived at a different conclusion. Unless there exists an error apparent on the face of the record or the trial court has committed a fundamental jurisdictional error going to the root of the matter, appellate interference is unwarranted.

Post-sale confusion: A Developing Doctrine 40.2. The notion of post-sale confusion – though well recognized in jurisdictions like the United States and now the UK – is still relatively novel within Indian trademark law. It refers to the confusion that occurs not at the point of purchase, but rather after the product has been bought and is seen in use by others. This form of confusion can arise, for example, when a consumer knowingly purchases counterfeit goods – such as imitation Rolex watches or knockoff Adidas or Nike apparel – or when automobiles are inspired from more premium offerings. In such cases, while the purchaser may not be deceived, the public at large may be misled into associating the infringing goods with the original brand, thereby diluting the brand’s reputation and goodwill. 40.3. The underlying harm in post-sale confusion lies in the deceptive appearance of legitimacy, which can impair the distinctiveness and perceived exclusivity of the genuine product. This is especially relevant in sectors like fashion, luxury goods, automobiles, and food items, where brand visibility and public perception are essential aspects of consumer engagement and brand equity. 40.4. However, in the present case, the goods in question are not intended for public display and are for private consumption.

p. 888

Therefore, the doctrine of post-sale confusion, while significant, is not directly applicable to the facts of this particular matter. The issue remains ripe for more comprehensive analysis in a future case where such considerations may come up for consideration. 40.5. Even though the doctrine of post-sale confusion is inapplicable to the facts of the present case, certain paragraphs from the judgment of the UK Supreme Court remain relevant, particularly, insofar as they clarify the broader principles governing similarity of marks, likelihood of confusion, and the limits of appellate interference with trial court findings. 40.6. For better appreciation, the relevant portions of the judgment are extracted below: “(b)The functions of a trade mark and the right of an owner of a registered trade mark:

16. In L’Oréal SA v Bellure NV (C-487/07) [2010] Bus LR 303, para 58, the CJEU gave a non-exhaustive list of the various functions of a registered trade mark, referring to “not only the essential function…but also its other functions, in particular that of guaranteeing the quality of the goods or services in question and those of communication, investment or advertising”.

17. In SkyKick UK Ltd v Sky Ltd [2024] UKSC 36; [2025] Bus LR 251, para 54, Lord Kitchin (with whom the other Justices agreed) outlined the essential function of a registered trade mark as being: “… in particular, to guarantee the identity of the origin of the goods or services in relation to which it is used. In more colloquial terms, it is a badge of origin and its purpose is to permit the consumer, without any possibility of confusion, to distinguish the goods or services of one undertaking from those of another” (f) The average consumer

29. The average consumer includes “any class of consumer to whom the guarantee of origin is directed

p. 889

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

and who would be likely to rely on it, for example in making a decision to buy or use the goods”: London Taxi Corpn Ltd v Frazer-Nash Research Ltd [2017] EWCA Civ 1729; [2018] FSR 7 per Floyd LJ, at para 34.

30. The characteristics of the average consumer have been considered in several cases. In Lidl Great Britain Ltd v Tesco Stores Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 262; [2025] 1 All ER 311 Arnold LJ observed, at para 15, that discussion of the characteristics and role of the average consumer occupies the whole of Chapter 3 in Kerly’s Law of Trade Marks and Trade Names, 17th ed (2023). Arnold LJ then proceeded to highlight several points for the purposes of that case, at paras 16-20. It is appropriate also for the purposes of this appeal to set out those points: “16. First, the average consumer is both a legal construct and a normative benchmark. They are a legal construct in that consumers who are ill-informed or careless and consumers with specialised knowledge or who are excessively careful are excluded from consideration. They are a normative benchmark in that they provide a standard which enables the courts to strike a balance between the various competing interests involved, including the interests of trade mark owners, their competitors and consumers.

17. Secondly, the average consumer is neither a single hypothetical person nor some form of mathematical average, nor does assessment from the perspective of the average consumer involve a statistical test. They represent consumers who have a spectrum of attributes such as age, gender, ethnicity and social group. For this

p. 890

reason the European case law frequently refers to ‘the relevant public’ and ‘average consumers’ rather than, or interchangeably with, ‘the average consumer’: see, for example, Intel Corpn Inc v CPM United Kingdom Ltd (Case C-252/07) [2008] ECR I-8823; [2009] Bus LR 1079, para

34. It follows that assessment from the perspective of the average consumer does not involve the imposition of a single meaning rule akin to that applied in defamation law (but not malicious falsehood). Thus, when considering the issue of likelihood of confusion, a conclusion of infringement is not precluded by a finding that many consumers of whom the average consumer is representative would not be confused. To the contrary, if, having regard to the perceptions and expectations of the average consumer, the court considers that a significant proportion of the relevant public is likely to be confused, then a finding of infringement may properly be made. 1 8 . T h i r d l y, a s s e s s m e n t f r o m t h e perspective of the average consumer is designed to facilitate adjudication of trade mark disputes by providing an objective criterion, by promoting consistency of assessment and by enabling courts and tribunals to determine such issues so far as possible without the need for evidence. …. …

table as extracted; see Source PDF

20. Fifthly, the average consumer rarely has the opportunity to make direct comparisons between trade marks (or between trade marks and signs) and must instead rely upon the imperfect picture of the trade mark they have kept in their mind.”

p. 891

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

(g) Similarity of the sign to the trade mark

31. It is sufficient for the purposes of this appeal to state that the test for the similarity of the sign to the trade mark was set out by the CJEU in Sabel BV v Puma AG (Case C251/95) [1998] 1 CMLR 445 which, at para 23, it stated: “That global appreciation of the visual, aural or conceptual similarity of the marks in question, must be based on the overall impression given by the marks, bearing in mind, in particular, their distinctive and dominant components.” In short, in order to assess the degree of similarity between the marks concerned, the court must determine the degree of visual, aural (or phonetic) and conceptual similarity between them.

32. If the threshold of similarity is passed, then an assessment of the degree of similarity becomes relevant to the subsequent question as to whether “there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public”: Sabel BV v Puma AG, at para 23.

33. In Ferrero SpA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (C- 552/09 P) [2011] ETMR 30 the CJEU stated, at para 66, that: “It is only if there is some similarity, even faint, between the marks at issue that the General Court must carry out a global assessment in order to ascertain whether, notwithstanding the low degree of similarity between them, there is, on account of the presence of other relevant factors such as the reputation or recognition enjoyed by the earlier mark, a likelihood of confusion or a link made between those marks by the relevant public.” The CJEU also referred to this requirement for a global assessment even if the degree of similarity

p. 892

was only faint, at para 60 of its judgment in European Union Intellectual Property Office v Equivalenza Manufactory SL (Case C-328/18 P) EU:C:2020:156 (“Equivalenza”). At para 60 the CJEU stated: “… It is only if there is some similarity, even faint, between those signs that the General Court must carry out a global assessment in order to ascertain whether, notwithstanding the low degree of similarity between them, there is, on account of the presence of other relevant factors such as the reputation or recognition enjoyed by the earlier mark, a likelihood of confusion in the mind of the relevant public (see, to that effect, judgment of 24 March 2011, Ferrero v OHIM (C552/09 P) EU:C:2011:177; [2011] ETMR 30, paras 65 and 66 and the case-law cited).” In relation to the faint degree of similarity see also JW Spear & Sons Ltd v Zynga Inc [2015] EWCA Civ 290; [2016] 1 All ER 226, paras 58-60. Furthermore, in that case Floyd LJ also addressed the issue of taking forward the court’s assessment of the degree of similarity to the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion. He stated at para 60(iv) that: “In conducting the global appreciation test the court must take forward its assessment of the degree of similarity perceived by the average consumer between the mark and sign.” (h) Likelihood of confusion on the part of the public

34. If the sign is at least similar to the trade mark, then the court is required to assess whether “there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public”.

35. The public does not (always) mean everyone but instead means the relevant public. So, in Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV v Remington

p. 893

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

Consumer Products Ltd (C299/99) [2003] Ch 159, para 63, the CJEU, citing Gut Springenheide GmbH v Oberkreisdirektor des Kreises Steinfurt─Amt für Lebensmittelüberwachung (Case C210/96) [1998] ECR I-4657, para 31, identified the relevant public as the “average consumer of the category of goods or services in question”. In Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer & Co GmbH v Klijsen Handel BV (C-342/97) [1999] ECR I-3819; [1999] All ER (EC) 587, the CJEU again identified the relevant public in the same way. The CJEU stated, at para 25: “The wording of article 5(1)(b) of the Directive – ‘there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public...’ — shows that the perception of marks in the mind of the average consumer of the category of goods or services in question plays a decisive role in the global appreciation of the likelihood of confusion.”

36. The average consumer is only a consumer of the particular type of goods or services concerned. There is no requirement that the average consumer is an actual purchaser who buys or who has bought the specific goods or services in respect of which a potentially infringing sign is used. Where the goods are consumer goods in almost universal use in the United Kingdom, the relevant public consists of a very wide group of the members of the public. As this case concerns footwear, it was common ground that the public concerned with footwear is the UK adult population generally: see the judgment of Miles J at para 122.

37. In Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Metro Goldwyn Mayer Inc (Case C-39/97) [1999] ETMR 1; [1998] All ER (EC) 934, para 29, the CJEU explained what amounts to a likelihood of confusion in the following terms: “… the risk that the public might believe that the goods or services in question

p. 894

come from the same undertaking or, as the case may be, from economically-linked undertakings, constitutes a likelihood of confusion…“

38. In order to try to ensure consistency of decision making, a standard summary of the principles established by these authorities, expressed in terms referable to the registration context, has been adopted in this jurisdiction. The current version was set out by Arnold LJ in Match Group LLC v Muzmatch Ltd [2023] EWCA Civ 454; [2023] Bus LR 1097, para 27, as being: “(a) the likelihood of confusion must be appreciated globally, taking account of all relevant factors; (b) the matter must be judged through the eyes of the average consumer of the goods or services in question, who is deemed to be reasonably well informed and reasonably circumspect and observant, but who rarely has the chance to make direct comparisons between marks and must instead rely upon the imperfect picture of them he has kept in his mind, and whose attention varies according to the category of goods or services in question; (c) the average consumer normally perceives a mark as a whole and does not proceed to analyse its various details; (d) the visual, aural and conceptual similarities of the marks must normally be assessed by reference to the overall impressions created by the marks bearing in mind their distinctive and dominant components, but it is only when all other components of a complex mark are negligible that it is permissible to make

p. 895

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

the comparison solely on the basis of the dominant elements; (e) nevertheless, the overall impression conveyed to the public by a composite trade mark may, in certain circumstances, be dominated by one or more of its components (f) and beyond the usual case, where the overall impression created by a mark depends heavily on the dominant features of the mark, it is quite possible that in a particular case an element corresponding to an earlier trade mark may retain an independent distinctive role in a composite mark, without necessarily constituting a dominant element of that mark; (g) a lesser degree of similarity between the goods or services may be offset by a greater degree of similarity between the marks, and vice versa; (h) there is a greater likelihood of confusion where the earlier mark has a highly distinctive character, either per se or because of the use that has been made of it; (i) mere association, in the strict sense that the later mark brings the earlier mark to mind, is not sufficient; (j) the reputation of a mark does not give grounds for presuming a likelihood of confusion simply because of a likelihood of association in the strict sense; and (k) if the association between the marks creates a risk that the public might believe that the respective goods or services come from the same or economically-

p. 896

linked undertakings, there is a likelihood of confusion.

39. Having set out the standard summary of the principles in terms referable to the registration context, Arnold LJ went on to state, at para 28, that: “The same principles are applicable when considering infringement, although it is necessary for this purpose to consider the actual use of the sign complained of in the context in which the sign has been used.” (i) The context in which the sign has been used.

82. The same pragmatic approach to the level of attentiveness in relation to post-sale confusion was applied on appeal in the judgment of the CJEU (First Chamber). The relevant paragraphs in the judgment are paragraphs 40–43. At para 40 the CJEU stated: “40. Where it is established in fact that the objective characteristics of a given product mean that the average consumer purchases it only after a particularly careful examination, it is important in law to take into account that such a fact may reduce the likelihood of confusion between marks relating to such goods at the crucial moment when the choice between those goods and marks is made.”

94. It is perhaps obvious, and certainly an inevitable conclusion drawn from experience, that reasonable minds, and in particular reasonable judicially trained minds, each faithfully applying the relevant law and principles, will come to different conclusions about the answer to these multifactorial questions. While of course the decision of an appellate court trumps that of the court below, the law has imposed structured constraints designed to prevent a free for all in a higher court whenever a party (with the necessary resources) wishes to challenge the first instance decision of the

p. 897

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

trial judge. The reasons for these constraints are set out in a string of well-known authorities including, in the intellectual property context, Fage UK Ltd v Chobani UK Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 5; [2014] FSR 29, per Lewison LJ at para 114. The reasons there set out relevantly include the following: (i) The trial is not a dress rehearsal. It is the first and last night of the show. …

95. In Lifestyle Equities CV v Amazon UK Services Ltd [2024] UKSC 8; [2024] Bus LR 532 this court reviewed those constraints in a trade mark context. After citing from the Fage case this court in a joint judgment said, at paras 49-50: “49. That does not, however, mean the appeal court is powerless to intervene where the judge has fallen into error in arriving at an evaluative decision such as whether an activity was or was not targeted at a particular territory. It may be possible to establish that the judge was plainly wrong or that there has been a significant error of principle; but the circumstances in which an effective challenge may be mounted to an evaluative decision are not limited to such cases. Many of the important authorities in this area were reviewed by the Court of Appeal in In re Sprintroom Ltd [2019] 2 BCLC 617, paras 72–76. There, in a judgment to which all members of the court (McCombe, Leggatt and Rose LJJ) contributed, the court concluded, at para 76, in terms with which we agree, that on a challenge to an evaluative decision of a first instance judge, the appeal court does not carry out the balancing exercise afresh but must ask whether the decision of the judge was wrong by reason of an

p. 898

identifiable flaw in the judge’s treatment of the question to be decided, such as a gap in logic, a lack of consistency, or a failure to take into account some material factor, which undermines the cogency of the conclusion.

50. On the other hand, it is equally clear that, for the decision to be ‘wrong’ under CPR r 52.21(3), it is not enough to show, without more, that the appellate court might have arrived at a different evaluation.”

IX. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

41. 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.

42. 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.

43. Section 17(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 grants exclusive rights only in respect of the mark as registered. Section 17(2) excludes protection for common or non-distinctive elements unless such elements have acquired secondary meaning. Sections 27(2) and 29 preserve the right to institute passing off actions and define the contours of infringement, respectively. Notably, Section 29(3)

p. 899

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

presumes confusion only where identical marks are used for identical goods – a condition not met in the present case as the marks.

44. Applying the settled legal standards – including the anti-dissection rule, the overall similarity test, and the perspective of an average consumer – we prima facie find no deceptive similarity between the competing marks that would give rise to confusion.

45. 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.

46. 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.

47. Though the appellants heavily rely on the anti-dissection principle, they themselves seek to dissect their composite marks and claim exclusive rights over isolated elements such as ‘PRIDE’ and the use of the colour blue. Their claim, in essence, appears to be based on brand association with the Seagram’s or Pernod Richard portfolio, rather than any legally cognizable infringement.

48. The allegation regarding the embossing of “Seagram Quality” on the respondent’s bottle was rightly rejected by the Commercial Court. The bottle produced as evidence by the appellants lacked such embossing, and this finding remains unchallenged. The appellants themselves admitted that they failed to furnish any invoice or produce a witness to support their claim, thereby rendering the allegation unreliable and lacking in bona fides.

49. 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.

p. 900

50. 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.

51. 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.

52. The piece-meal approach adopted by the appellants – seeking to combine unrelated features from their own marks – has undermined their claim. Apart from the shared use of a common term, there is no meaningful similarity between the marks. Key elements such as packaging, typography, bottle design, and label layout are materially distinct. In a market segment, where consumers are more discerning, the likelihood of confusion is negligible.

53. The appellants’ contention that the Commercial Court dissected the marks mechanically is belied by the High Court’s holistic analysis. 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.

54. The comparison 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.

55. 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

p. 901

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

extends only to distinctive identifiers. Descriptive or commonplace elements fall outside the ambit of protection unless distinctiveness is proved.

56. 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.

57. In view of the foregoing analysis, we find no ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Commercial Court and the High Court. The appellants have failed to establish a prima facie case of deceptive similarity that could justify the grant of interim injunction.

X. CONCLUSION

58. In fine, the appeal fails and is dismissed. The Commercial Court is directed 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. It is clarified that the present judgment is confined to the adjudication of the application for interim injunction, based solely on the materials available at this interlocutory stage. There shall be no order as to costs.

59. All pending application(s), if any, stand closed.

Result of the case: Appeal dismissed.