Consumers Likely To Exercise Greater Care In Purchase Decisions: Supreme Court Rejects Plea Of ‘Blenders Pride’ Alleging Trademark Infringement By ‘London Pride’
The Supreme Court said that the marks – ‘BLENDERS PRIDE’ and ‘LONDON PRIDE’ – are clearly not identical and though the products are similar, the branding, packaging, and trade dress of each are materially distinct.
The Supreme Court has dismissed a Civil Appeal filed by Pernod Ricard India Private Limited which alleged trademark infringement by whiskey brand ‘London Pride’ against ‘Blenders Pride’.
The Court was of the view that the consumers are likely to exercise greater care in their purchase decisions.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan observed, “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.”
The Bench said that the marks – ‘BLENDERS PRIDE’ and ‘LONDON PRIDE’ – are clearly not identical and though the products are similar, the branding, packaging, and trade dress of each are materially distinct.
Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul represented the Appellants while AOR Ekansh Mishra represented the Respondent.
Brief Facts
In 2023, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore had dismissed the Appellants’ challenge to the Order passed by the Commercial Court. The Commercial Court had rejected the Application filed by the Appellants under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). According to the Appellants, they were engaged in the manufacture and distribution of wines, liquors, and spirits. They sell whisky under the brand names ‘BLENDERS PRIDE’ and ‘IMPERIAL BLUE’, both of which are registered trademarks. The Appellants also hold a registered trademark for ‘SEAGRAM’S’, which serves as the house mark of the Appellant No. 1 i.e., Pernod Ricard, and is used both in India and internationally across various product lines. In 2019, the Appellants became aware that the Respondent has been marketing whisky under the mark ‘LONDON PRIDE’, using packaging that was alleged to be deceptively similar to that of the Appellants.
It was alleged that the mark adopted by the Respondent was not only phonetically and visually similar to ‘BLENDERS PRIDE’, but also copied the colour combination, get-up and trade dress of ‘IMPERIAL BLUE’ label. Further, the Respondent allegedly used ‘SEAGRAM’S’ embossed bottles of the Appellants’ mark ‘IMPERIAL BLUE’, for the sale of its ‘LONDON PRIDE’ whisky. Being aggrieved, the Appellant instituted a Civil Suit seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining the Respondent from trademark infringement, passing off, copyright violation, and also prayed for reliefs, such as, rendition of accounts, damages, and delivery up of infringing material. However, the Commercial Court dismissed its Application and the High Court also dismissed their Appeal. Challenging this, the Appellants approached the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court in view of the above facts, noted, “… it becomes evident that the rival marks are not deceptively similar. The appellants’ trademarks – ‘BLENDERS PRIDE’, ‘IMPERIAL BLUE’, and ‘SEAGRAM’S’ – 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.”
The Court emphasised that 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 and these considerations operate cumulatively, and the absence of any one of these may be sufficient to decline interim relief.
“… 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”, it remarked.
The Court enunciated that 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 and 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.
“However, in the present case, the goods in question are not intended for public display and are for private consumption. 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”, it added.
The Court reiterated that deceptive similarity does not necessitate exact imitation and 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. … 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”, it explained.
The Court further observed that 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.
“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”, it also said.
Conclusion
The Court was of the view that the Commercial Court and High Court have rightly held that the term ‘PRIDE’ is publici juris, and commonly used in the liquor industry.
“The dominant components – ‘BLENDERS’, ‘IMPERIAL BLUE’, and ‘LONDON’ – are entirely different both visually and phonetically, producing distinct overall impressions”, it added.
The Court remarked that the Appellants’ claim appears to be based on brand association with the Seagram’s or Pernod Richard portfolio, rather than any legally cognizable infringement.
“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. … 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”, it held.
The Court said that 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 and, each mark must be assessed independently, and hence, cherry-picking generic or unregistered features from multiple marks to fabricate a composite case of infringement is not legally sustainable.
“In a market segment, where consumers are more discerning, the likelihood of confusion is negligible. … 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”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the Apex Court dismissed the Appeal and directed the Commercial Court to proceed with the trial and dispose of the Suit within four months.
Cause Title- Pernod Ricard India Private Limited & Another v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 981)
Appearance:
Appellants: Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, AOR Mohit D. Ram, Advocates Hemant Singh, Mamta Jha, Sambhav Jain, Akhil Saxena, Reha Mohan, Rajul Shrivastav, Monisha Handa, Anubhav Sharma, Sidhant Oberoi, Akanksha Majumdar, Nayan Gupta, Sabir Kachhi, Pritha Suri, Ira Mahajan, and Tabeer Riyaz.
Respondent: AOR Ekansh Mishra, Advocates Vaibhav Mishra, and Ayush Jain.
