Blenders Pride v. London Pride: Supreme Court Denies Relief to Pernod Ricard

Blenders Pride v. London Pride: Supreme Court Denies Relief to Pernod Ricard

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India has delivered a significant ruling in a trademark infringement and passing-off action, clarifying that trademark protection applies to the registered mark as a whole and not to individual components. The Court denied relief to Pernod Ricard in its case against JK Enterprises, holding that it cannot claim exclusive rights over the word “Pride” when its registration is for the composite mark “Blenders Pride.”

Factual Background

Pernod Ricard, makers of Blenders Pride, Imperial Blue and Seagram’s, alleged that Karanveer Singh Chhabra, proprietor of JK Enterprises, had infringed its rights by marketing whisky under the brand London Pride. The company claimed that London Pride was deceptively similar to its registered marks and trade dress, alleging imitation of its *packaging, colour scheme, labels and the prominent use of the word “Pride.”

Procedural Background

Both the Commercial Court and the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Indore Bench), in a November 3, 2023 order, rejected Pernod Ricard’s plea for an interim injunction. The courts held 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 industry, with at least 48 registered variants in Class 33 (alcoholic beverages). They also noted that the bottle shapes, labels, colour schemes, and logos of the competing products were visibly distinct.

Issues

1. Whether London Pride is deceptively similar to Pernod Ricard’s registered marks and trade dress?

2. Whether Pernod Ricard can claim exclusivity over the word Pride?

3. Whether consumer confusion was likely among premium whisky buyers?

Contentions of the Parties

Pernod Ricard’s Contention: Pernod argued that London Pride was deceptively similar to its registered marks and trade dress, and that Chhabra’s whisky imitated its packaging, colour scheme, labels, and the prominent use of the word Pride.

Chhabra’s Contention: The respondent contended that London Pride was visually, structurally, and phonetically distinct and that Pride is a common laudatory term in the liquor industry, incapable of exclusive appropriation.

Reasoning and Analysis

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s findings. The Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan emphasised that:

• Trademark protection applies to the mark as a whole, not to unregistered components within it (anti-dissection rule).
• The word “Pride” is publici juris in the liquor trade and cannot be monopolised without a standalone registration.
• Buyers of premium whisky are generally educated and discerning, hence unlikely to be misled.
• No evidence of actual consumer confusion was presented.

Importantly, the Supreme Court formally introduced the “post-sale confusion” doctrine into Indian trademark law for the first time, drawing from US and UK precedent. The Court noted that while this doctrine addresses confusion arising after purchase (e.g., when products are seen in public use), it was not applicable here since liquor is privately consumed.

Outcome

The Supreme Court dismissed Pernod Ricard’s appeal and refused to grant an injunction against JK Enterprises. It reiterated that exclusive rights cannot be claimed over the word “Pride” without standalone registration.

Earlier, in January 2024, the Court had issued notice and suggested the respondent consider altering its trade dress, but eventually decided on merits. Similarly, in September 2023, Pernod Ricard was denied interim relief in its case against United Spirits for using the mark “Royal Challengers American Pride.”

Representation

Appellant (Pernod Ricard): In this case the appellant was represented by Mr. Mukul Rohatgi and Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr Advocates with Mr. Hemant Singh, Ms. Mamta Jha, Mr. Mohit D Ram, Mr. Sambhav Jain, Mr. Akhil Saxena, Mr. Reha Mohan, Mr. Rajul Shrivastav, Ms. Monisha Handa, Mr. Anubhav Sharma, Mr. Sidhant Oberoi, Ms. Akanksha Majumdar, Ms. Nayan Gupta, Mr. Sabir Kachhi, Ms. Pritha Suri, Ms. Ira Mahajan and Mr. Tabeer Riyaz, Advocates.

Respondent (JK Enterprises): Meanwhile the respondent was represented by Mr. Shyam Divan and Mr. Abhimanyu Bhandari, Sr Advocates with Mr. Vaibhav Mishra, Mr. Ekansh Mishra, Mr. Ayush Jain, Mr. Roungan Chowdhury and Mr. Shubham Tiwari, Advocates.