Pernod Ricard v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra — Trademark Case Law
Citation & Court
Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra, Supreme Court of India, decided 14 August 2025. Neutral citation: 2025 INSC 981. Civil Appeal No. 10638 of 2025.
Need help with this?
Facing an examination report, a show-cause hearing or an opposition? See our trademark objection reply and opposition service. We are a trademark consultant in Ahmedabad working with businesses across Gujarat.
The Dispute
Pernod Ricard relied on its whisky marks BLENDERS PRIDE and IMPERIAL BLUE against LONDON PRIDE and the defendant's packaging. The Commercial Court and Madhya Pradesh High Court refused an interim injunction. Pernod Ricard appealed.
What the Court Held
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It found no prima facie case for an interim injunction on the evidence before it.
- Compare the marks as a whole. The Court considered the complete names, distinctive elements and overall presentation rather than combining parts of Pernod Ricard's two marks.
- A common word is not automatically exclusive. PRIDE was a common, laudatory word. Pernod Ricard had not established that customers identified that word alone exclusively with it.
- Context matters. The different dominant words, packaging and the purchasers of these whiskies mattered to the comparison.
How to Use This in Your Reply
This decision can help explain why a shared common element should be considered within the complete marks. In a Section 11 objection reply, compare appearance, sound, meaning, goods and customers, and attach the evidence supporting the distinctions.
Do not treat a shared common word as an automatic defence. An owner relying on an individual component should assess whether evidence shows that it has acquired distinctiveness. For medicinal products, read the stricter confusion analysis in Cadila Health Care v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals.
Important Limit
Paragraph 58 expressly confines the Court's observations to interim relief and leaves the trial to decide the merits independently. This is a decision of 14 August 2025 about these marks and evidence; it does not establish that every mark containing PRIDE or BLUE is safe to use.
Judgment Source
Read the original Supreme Court judgment. Relevant paragraphs: 43–47 (comparison), 50–55 (components and evidence), and 57–58 (interim conclusion and limits). Reviewed 8 October 2026.
Facing this exact situation in your own filing?
Send us your examination report, opposition notice, or hearing date — we'll tell you how this applies.