The Supreme Court has heard the Kashmyr vodka trademark dispute between Piccadily Agro Industries and Radico Khaitan Ltd, with Justice Joymalya Bagchi asking what Kashmyr has got to do with vodka.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
New Delhi: The Supreme Court heard the dispute over the KASHMYR vodka mark between Piccadily Agro Industries and Radico Khaitan Ltd, during which Justice Joymalya Bagchi asked what the word Kashmyr has got to do with vodka [Piccadily Agro Industries v. Radico Khaitan Ltd].
Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared in the matter. The Court’s observation was a question put to counsel during the hearing. It is not a finding, and the Court has expressed no view on the merits of either side’s case.
The dispute
Piccadily Agro Industries says it holds the registered mark Cashmere, first registered in 2015 for luxury vodka, and has applied for the mark Cashmir, under which it launched a luxury vodka in May 2025. Radico Khaitan launched its Kashmyr vodka in July 2025. Piccadily alleges that Kashmyr is deceptively similar to its marks. Radico disputes that, and its position, as put before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, is that the Cashmir registration is still pending and that the Karnal court lacked territorial jurisdiction because it neither makes nor sells the product in Haryana.
The proceedings so far
In September 2025, the Commercial Court at Karnal granted Piccadily an interim injunction restraining Radico from making, selling or promoting vodka under the Kashmyr label while the suit is pending.
On 9 October 2025, a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court comprising Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor, in Radico Khaitan Ltd. v. Picadilly Agro Industries Ltd. (FAO-COM-17-2025), held the injunction in abeyance, noting triable issues. These included whether any cause of action arose within Haryana, whether the marks and bottle designs are deceptively similar, whether Piccadily can claim prior use and goodwill, and whether a less restrictive measure would have sufficed. That order was interim and did not decide the merits.
Why the hearing matters
Trademark disputes over geographic or evocative words turn on whether the mark is distinctive for the goods it is used on and whether it is deceptively similar to a rival’s. The Bench’s question, on what the word has to do with vodka, goes to how the mark is used in the market. The Court’s eventual decision on the dispute is awaited.
Case Title: Piccadily Agro Industries v. Radico Khaitan Ltd
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice Joymalya Bagchi
Appearances: Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi.