Pernod Ricard v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra — Trademark Case Law

Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1701, Supreme Court of India (J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.; judgment by R. Mahadevan, J.), decided 14 August 2025.

Pernod Ricard owns the well-known whisky marks BLENDERS PRIDE and IMPERIAL BLUE. A Madhya Pradesh-based manufacturer sold whisky under the name LONDON PRIDE, in packaging that also used blue and gold. Pernod Ricard sued for infringement and passing off and sought an interim injunction.

The Commercial Court and then the Madhya Pradesh High Court refused the injunction. Pernod Ricard appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding no prima facie case for an interim injunction. Its reasoning turned on four points.

PRIDE is publici juris. It is a laudatory and commonly used English word, already part of many registered marks, and incapable of exclusive appropriation without proof of secondary meaning. Pernod Ricard had not produced consumer surveys or brand-recognition evidence showing that the public associated PRIDE with it alone.

Marks are compared as a whole. Under the anti-dissection rule, similarity is assessed by considering the mark in its entirety, not by extracting one component and comparing that.

The dominant feature test points the other way. In composite marks the distinctive words — BLENDERS, IMPERIAL — are the dominant elements. Common words such as PRIDE or BLUE cannot be monopolised by being placed inside a larger mark.

The buyers are discerning. Premium and ultra-premium whiskies are bought by consumers who are likely to take greater care over the purchase, which reduces the likelihood of confusion. Shared blue and gold trade dress was not enough to create an overall resemblance likely to deceive.

This is the most recent Supreme Court authority on deceptive similarity, and it is particularly useful for a defendant or an applicant facing a citation built on a common word. If the shared element is laudatory, descriptive or common to the trade, argue that it cannot be monopolised and that the marks must be compared as a whole.

It also supports a Section 11 reply where the cited mark and yours share only a common element. See replying to a Section 11 objection.

For brand owners the lesson is sharper. A mark built around a common word gives weak protection over that word, and if you intend to rely on it, gather evidence of secondary meaning before you need it. Compare Cadila Health Care v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals, where the stricter approach for medicinal products applies.

Key takeaway: A laudatory common word such as PRIDE cannot be monopolised. Marks are compared as a whole, the distinctive part dominates, and careful buyers of premium goods are less likely to be confused.