INDIA: Supreme Court Upholds Verdict on Confusion, Infringement, and Trade Dress Violation Over Whiskey Labels

The Supreme Court of India in Pernod Ricard India Private Limited & Another v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra (2025 INSC 981) upheld the order passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court while dismissing an appeal filed by Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd. (the appellants).  

The appellants claimed that Karanveer Singh Chhabra’s (the respondent’s) mark LONDON PRIDE infringed their trademarks BLENDERS PRIDE, IMPERIAL BLUE, and SEAGRAM’S, bearing registration numbers 623365, 3296387, and 105507, respectively. They argued that the respondent’s product posed a likelihood of confusion by infringing their trademarks and violating the overall trade dress, including the distinctive dome-shaped label design associated with their whiskey. 

The respondent argued that LONDON PRIDE was not similar to the appellants’ trademarks or trade dress and claimed that PRIDE is a generic term that the alcohol industry often uses, which cannot be monopolized.  

The Court dismissed the appeal by applying several tests, such as the Rule of Anti-Dissection, the Dominant Feature Test, and the Average Consumer with the Imperfect Recollection Test. However, while comparing the marks, the Court held that, when viewed as a whole, both marks were structurally, phonetically, and visually different.  

The Court accepted that PRIDE was a generic term incapable of exclusive appropriation and that LONDON, being a geographical identifier, conveys a different brand identity from BLENDERS or IMPERIAL. Further, the similarities in the colors blue and gold were generic in nature, and the overall resemblance in visual appearance, phonetic structure, and trade dress of the rival products was non-existent. 

The Court also found that the rival products were premium whiskies whose consumers were likely to exercise greater care in their purchase. Therefore, no confusion or deception in the mind of an average consumer exercising imperfect recollection could be caused. 

Author’s Note 

This judgment sets a concerning precedent as it shakes the foundation of passing off. Throughout the judgment, the Court appears to have focused on the dissimilarity between the competing marks and their trade dress and lost sight of the similarities. The argument that whiskies are purchased at crowded, dimly lit wine shops, giving rise to the likelihood of consumer confusion, and making the products deceptively similar, was either not raised by the appellants or was ignored by the Court. While some consumers may be presumed to have the ability to distinguish between the competing marks, most consumers make their purchases on the basis of an imperfect recollection. In a jurisdiction where the advertisement of alcohol is unlawful, the opportunity to demonstrate the difference in the source of origin is also lacking.
 
Although every effort has been made to verify the accuracy of this article, readers are urged to check independently on matters of specific concern or interest. Law & Practice updates are published without comment from INTA except where it has taken an official position.

© 2025 International Trademark Association