The Supreme Court has denied relief to Pernod Ricard in its trademark infringement and passing-off action against Karanveer Singh Chhabra, proprietor of JK Enterprises, over his whisky brand London Pride. [Pernod Ricard v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra].A Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan upheld the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s November 3, 2023 order rejecting the company’s plea ruling that Pernod Ricard cannot claim an exclusive right over the word Pride when its registration is for the composite mark Blenders Pride..Pernod Ricard, makers of Blenders Pride, Imperial Blue and the Seagram’s mark, alleged that London Pride was deceptively similar to its registered marks and trade dress. The company claimed that Chhabra’s product imitated it packaging, colour schemes, labels and the prominent use of the word Pride, thereby creating a likelihood of consumer confusion.The plaintiffs sought:A permanent injunction restraining use of London Pride or any deceptively similar packaging.Delivery up of infringing material for destruction.Damages/account of profits (₹1 crore as token damages).An interim injunction pending the trial..Chhabra argued that London Pride was visually, structurally, and phonetically distinct from Pernod Ricard’s marks, and that Pride is a common, laudatory term in the liquor industry, incapable of exclusive appropriation..Both the commercial court and the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Indore Bench) refused Pernod Ricard’s plea for an interim injunction. They found that the only common element between Blenders Pride and London Pride was the word Pride, which is generic, laudatory and widely used in the liquor trade, with at least 48 registered variants in the relevant trademark classes. They noted that Pernod Ricard had no separate registration for the word Pride. The Courts also observed that the bottle shapes, labels, colour schemes and logos of the competing products were visibly different. Given that buyers of premium whisky are generally educated and discerning, the courts concluded they were unlikely to be misled. No evidence of actual consumer confusion was presented..The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court's analysis, emphasising that trademark protection applies to the whole registered mark, not to an unregistered word within it. The Court held that the word 'Pride' is 'publici juris' in the liquor trade and cannot be monopolised without a standalone registration."Trademark similarity must be assessed by considering the mark as a whole, and not by extracting a single component for comparison," the Court declared, reinforcing the anti-dissection rule..In its judgment, the apex court formally introduced the "post-sale confusion" doctrine to Indian trademark law for the first time."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," the Court stated, drawing from recent UK Supreme Court precedent.This doctrine addresses confusion that occurs not at purchase, but when products are seen in public use - particularly relevant for fashion, luxury goods, and automobiles where brand visibility matters. While not applicable to the current case involving privately consumed alcohol, it opens significant new avenues for brand protection..The Supreme Court had issued notice in the plea in January 2024 and thereafter asked JK Enterprises to consider changing its trade dress. However, the Court eventually ruled on merits. Similarly in September 2023, refused to grant interim relief to Pernod Ricard India in its trademark infringement plea against United Spirits which manufactures whisky under the name 'Royal Challengers American Pride.'.Pernod was represented by Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Neeraj Kishan Kaul with Advocates Hemant Singh, Mamta Jha, Mohit D Ram, 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..The respondents were represented by Senior Advocates Shyam Divan and Abhimanyu Bhandari with Advocates Vaibhav Mishra, Ekansh Mishra, Ayush Jain, Roungan Chowdhury and Shubham Tiwari..Read Judgment
