The Supreme Court refused Pernod Ricard’s plea claiming exclusive rights over the word Pride in its Blenders Pride trademark. The Court ruled that Pride is a generic term in the liquor industry and cannot be monopolised without separate registration.
New Delhi: On August 14, the Supreme Court of India has refused to grant relief to Pernod Ricard in its trademark infringement and passing-off case against Karanveer Singh Chhabra, the owner of JK Enterprises, over his whisky brand London Pride.
A Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan upheld the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s order dated November 3, 2023, which had rejected Pernod Ricard’s plea.
ALSO READ: Old Mist vs. Old Monk: Himachal HC Halts Sale Over Trademark Clash
The Court observed that Pernod Ricard cannot claim exclusive rights over the word Pride, as its trademark registration covers the composite mark Blenders Pride, not the word Pride individually.
Pernod Ricard, makers of Blenders Pride, Imperial Blue, and Seagram’s, had argued that London Pride was deceptively similar to its registered marks and trade dress.
The company claimed that Chhabra’s product copied its packaging, colour schemes, labels, and the prominent use of the word Pride, creating a likelihood of consumer confusion.
The company had sought a permanent injunction to stop the use of London Pride or any similar packaging, delivery of infringing material for destruction, damages or account of profits (Rs 1 crore as token damages), and an interim injunction pending trial.
On the other hand, Chhabra contended that London Pride was visually, structurally, and phonetically distinct from Pernod Ricard’s marks. He also argued that the word Pride is common and laudatory in the liquor industry and cannot be exclusively claimed by any one company.
Both the commercial court and the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Indore Bench) refused to grant an interim injunction to Pernod Ricard.
ALSO READ: Delhi High Court Examines Jurisdictional Challenges in Trademarks Act, 1999
The courts noted that the only similarity 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 variations in the relevant trademark classes.
The courts also highlighted that Pernod Ricard had no separate registration for the word Pride.
The courts observed that the bottle shapes, labels, colour schemes, and logos of the two products were visibly different.
Since buyers of premium whisky are generally educated and discerning, the courts concluded that consumers were unlikely to be misled. Furthermore, there was no evidence of actual consumer confusion.
The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court’s reasoning and emphasised that trademark protection applies to the entire registered mark, not to an unregistered word within it.
The Court said that the word Pride is publici juris in the liquor trade and cannot be monopolised without a separate registration.
The Supreme Court had first issued notice in the matter in January 2024 and had asked JK Enterprises to consider changing its trade dress. However, after reviewing the case on merits, the Court ruled in favour of the respondent.
Similarly, in September 2023, the courts had refused to grant interim relief to Pernod Ricard India in a separate trademark infringement case against United Spirits, which produces whisky under the name “Royal Challengers American Pride.”
ALSO READ: CHUTIYARAM Trademark Accepted by Trade Marks Registry for Namkeen & Biscuits Brand
Pernod Ricard was represented by Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Neeraj Kishan Kaul along 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.
Case Title:
Pernod Ricard v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra
Click Here to Read More Reports on Trademark
