Supreme Court On Criteria For Granting Interim Injunctions In Trademark Cases

Pernod Ricard India (P) Ltd. & Anr v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra

The core issue was whether the appellants were entitled to an interim injunction restraining the respondent from using the trademark, get-up, and trade dress of ‘LONDON PRIDE’ for whisky, on the grounds that it amounted to infringement or imitation of the appellants’ registered marks, ‘BLENDERS PRIDE’, ‘IMPERIAL BLUE’, and ‘SEAGRAM’S’.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the concurrent findings of the Commercial Court and the High Court, concluding that the appellants had failed to establish a prima facie case for deceptive similarity.

The key findings and rationale supporting the decision included:

1. Lack of Deceptive Similarity: Applying the principles of the anti-dissection rule and the overall similarity test, the Court found no visual, phonetic, or structural similarity that would likely cause confusion in the mind of an average consumer with imperfect recollection.

2. Generic Term "PRIDE": The courts correctly held that the word ‘PRIDE’ is a laudatory and commonly used term (publici juris), particularly in the liquor industry, and the appellants could not claim exclusive rights over this component in isolation. The dominant components of the marks—‘BLENDERS’ and ‘LONDON’—are entirely distinct.

3. Discerning Consumers and Trade Dress: Consumers of premium and ultra-premium whisky are presumed to be discerning, and the distinct trade dress, packaging, label design, and typography of ‘LONDON PRIDE’ sufficiently differentiate it from the appellants’ products, negating the likelihood of confusion.

4. Prior Precedent: The Court noted that the appellants had previously been unsuccessful in challenging the use of ‘PRIDE’ in another composite mark ("Royal Challenger American Pride"), where it was held they possessed no independent registration for the standalone word.

The Supreme Court directed the Commercial Court to proceed with the trial and dispose of the underlying suit on its merits, uninfluenced by the interlocutory observations, within four months.