Today, On 17th November, The Supreme Court has criticised the sale of liquor in tetra packs, saying the packaging resembles juice boxes and lacks proper warnings. The Court warned that such packs make it easy for children to carry alcohol to school.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court expressed strong disapproval of the widespread sale of liquor in tetrapacks, noting that the packaging resembles fruit juice boxes, lacks health warnings, and allows children to secretly take alcohol to school.
A Bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi made these comments during a hearing regarding cross-petitions in a long-standing trademark dispute between two leading whisky brands in India Officer’s Choice (Allied Blenders & Distillers) and Original Choice (John Distilleries).
Also Read: Delhi Red Fort Blast Case: Court Sends Amir Rashid Ali to 10-Day NIA Custody
Adding that the packages do not appear to be liquor at all and are devoid of statutory health warnings, the Bench, questioned,
“It looks like juice. Children can carry this to schools. How are governments allowing this?”
The Court further commented that the sale of such products seems driven solely by state revenue interests, with insufficient attention paid to public health effects.
The Court inquired,
“Governments are interested in revenue. But how much health cost is wasted because of this?”
This dispute dates back to the early 1990s. Officer’s Choice was first used in 1988 and was subsequently acquired and registered. Original Choice entered the market in 1995–1996 and secured registration as well. Both companies have garnered substantial market share, with combined sales exceeding Rs.60,000 crore over the past two decades. Each brand claims to be among the top five whisky labels in India.
Also Read: Delhi Judge Holds 2:25 AM Hearing at Home, Sends Money Laundering Accused to ED Custody
Key issues in the conflict include:
- Whether Original Choice is deceptively similar to Officer’s Choice;
- Whether the common suffix “CHOICE” disclaimed by both partiesis enough to create confusion;
- Whether colors, badges, epaulettes, and label layouts contribute to a misleading overall impression;
- Whether the 20+ years of coexistence represent acquiescence or honest concurrent usage.
In March 2013, the IPAB dismissed both parties’ rectification petitions, asserting that the marks were not deceptively similar and that the rival labels did not cause confusion. Both companies subsequently filed writ petitions challenging this ruling.
The Madras High Court set-aside the 2013 IPAB decision, allowing Original Choice’s rectification petition and dismissing that of Officer’s Choice. The High Court found that the IPAB had made a critical error by focusing solely on the word “CHOICE” while neglecting the competing label designs and overall appearance. It highlighted the importance of a holistic assessment of trademark similarity rather than a fragmented analysis.
The Court determined that the structural similarities between “Officer’s Choice” and “Original Choice” justified rectification, dismissing arguments against the legitimacy of the assignment made by ABD, stating that the registration had been validated through subsequent corporate restructuring authorized by the Bombay High Court.
The case ultimately escalated to the Supreme Court, which observed that the dispute had persisted for more than two decades, with 12 of those years spent in the High Court.
The Bench suggested whether branding modifications could resolve the matter instead of lengthy litigation. Both parties agreed to explore adjustments to their color schemes, emblem placements, and the stylization of the word “CHOICE.”
The Court then referred the parties to retired Justice L. Nageswara Rao for time-sensitive mediation. It instructed preliminary discussions to occur within a week and requested a status update in two weeks. When one counsel jokingly mentioned that the litigation would end if tetrapacks were banned, the Bench highlighted that this remark pointed to a regulatory gap.
The Court suggested that the legality of liquor in cartons might need to be examined in the public interest, independent of the trademark dispute.
Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Shyam Divan represented John Distilleries, while Senior Advocates Harish Salve and Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for Allied Blenders.
Case Title: M/S. JOHN DISTILLERIES PVT LIMITED V M/S. ALLIED BLENDERS AND DISTILLERS PVT LTD. SLP(C) No. 33238-33239/2025
Read Attachment
Read Live Coverage