Key points
- On 14 August 2025 the Supreme Court refused Pernod Ricard an interim injunction against the LONDON PRIDE whisky mark (2025 INSC 981).
- “Pride” is a laudatory word widely used in the liquor trade. Without proof that it had come to mean Pernod Ricard’s whisky, its registration for BLENDERS PRIDE gave it no exclusive right in the word.
- Marks are compared as wholes. The dominant parts, BLENDERS, IMPERIAL BLUE and LONDON, were different, and features of two brands could not be combined into one claim.
- Buyers of premium whisky are discerning. The Court restated the test for interim injunctions in trade mark cases and asked for the trial to be finished within four months.
Many brand owners assume that registering a mark protects every word in it. The Supreme Court’s judgment in Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd. v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra, delivered on 14 August 2025 by Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, is a clear reminder that it does not.
The dispute
Pernod Ricard sells whisky under the marks BLENDERS PRIDE and IMPERIAL BLUE. Mr Chhabra, trading as JK Enterprises, sold whisky in Madhya Pradesh as LONDON PRIDE. Pernod Ricard sued for infringement and passing off and asked for an interim injunction. The Commercial Court refused it, the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed the appeal on 3 November 2023, and Pernod Ricard appealed to the Supreme Court.
What the Supreme Court held
No monopoly over a common word. “Pride” is a laudatory, commonly used English word, and many marks for spirits use it: the Court took judicial notice of registrations such as McDowell’s Pride, Highland Pride, Royal Pride and Pride of India in Class 33. Such a word can be claimed exclusively only if it has acquired a secondary meaning pointing to one trader. Pernod Ricard produced no consumer surveys or similar evidence, and turnover and advertising spend alone were not enough (paras 34.1 to 34.5).
Marks are compared as wholes. Under the anti-dissection rule a composite mark is judged by its overall impression, though its dominant feature may carry more weight. Here the dominant parts, BLENDERS, IMPERIAL BLUE and LONDON, were entirely different visually and phonetically, and the bottles, labels and packaging were materially distinct (paras 44 and 45).
No mixing and matching. Pernod Ricard relied on the word PRIDE from one brand and the colours and bottle of IMPERIAL BLUE from another. The Court called this “a hybrid and untenable pleading”: each mark must be assessed on its own (para 50).
The buyer matters. Premium and ultra-premium whisky is bought by discerning consumers, who are likely to take greater care (para 46).
So does objecting in time. Pernod Ricard had already failed against “Royal Challenge American Pride”. There the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that it had no registration for “Pride” on its own and, not having objected to the rival mark at the Trade Marks Registry, could not assert rights later; the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal against that decision in September 2023 (para 56).
Post-sale confusion: noted, not applied
The Court discussed the UK Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in Iconix v Dream Pairs, which accepts that confusion can arise after a sale, when other people see a product in use. It described the doctrine as still relatively novel in Indian law, and held that it did not apply to whisky, which is consumed privately rather than displayed, leaving the doctrine for a future case (paras 40 to 40.5). Brands whose products are worn or seen in public, such as clothing, luxury goods and cars, should watch for that case.
The test for an interim injunction
The Court restated what decides interim relief in trade mark cases: a prima facie case, the likelihood of confusion, the relative strength of each side’s case, the balance of convenience, irreparable harm and the public interest. The factors operate together, and the absence of any one may be enough to refuse relief (para 36.4). Because the interim stage often decides the commercial outcome while the trial drags on, the Court directed the Commercial Court to decide the suit within four months (para 58). Court records show the dispute was still being contested before the Madhya Pradesh High Court in 2026.
What brand owners should take from it
- Choose marks whose distinctive part is not a common or laudatory word. Words such as pride, royal, premium or gold are hard to protect on their own.
- Register what actually identifies your product: the word, the label, the shape of the bottle or pack, and the colour scheme, each separately where possible. A registration for a composite mark protects the composite.
- Build evidence of distinctiveness as you trade: consumer surveys, independent media references and consistent use. Turnover and advertising figures are not enough on their own.
- Watch the Trade Marks Journal and oppose conflicting applications in time. Silence at the Registry can weaken a later infringement claim.
- Plead each mark separately, with its own evidence of similarity.
See our trade marks and IP enforcement pages, our trade mark FAQs, and our article on what trade mark registration actually buys you.
Sources
This article is for general information and states the law as at 2 November 2026. It is not legal advice. For advice on your situation, contact the firm. Published by BRB Legal.
