Summary: Can a whisky giant own a word? Liquor heavyweight Pernod Ricard sued a competitor over the “London Pride” whisky brand. The Supreme Court offered a clear analytical framework to unpack such cases.
How far can ‘pride’ go in succeeding in a trademark passing off suit? The Supreme Court of India had occasion to consider this, although not quite literally, in Pernod Ricard India (P) Ltd. v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1701.
The suit in question, filed by Pernod Ricard India, alleged trademark infringement and passing off in its long-standing (registered) whisky brands BLENDERS PRIDE, IMPERIAL BLUE, and SEAGRAM’S. The Respondent, Karanveer Chhabra, marketed a brand of whisky called “LONDON PRIDE”. According to Pernod Ricard, the issues with the competing brand were threefold: its name was phonetically and visually similar (London Pride vs Blenders Pride); the colour scheme and packaging was nearly identical to that of Imperial Blue; and that the bottles were embossed with Seagram’s Quality.
The case had travelled long and far, with the trial court (Commercial Court, Indore) having first refused an interim injunction, and the Madhya Pradesh High Court having upheld that decision, finding no prima facie deceptive similarity, before eventually reaching the Supreme Court.
Legal issues
The Supreme Court noted that the ‘heart of trademark law’ is that there must be no likelihood of confusion for an average consumer. Where composite marks are involved, partial imitation might be sufficient to make out a successful case. But the Court clarified that the analytical framework to assess competing marks in such cases requires a nuanced application of the anti-dissection rule and the dominant mark doctrine, among other tests, which it proceeded to examine here.
Anti-dissection rule
The Court reaffirmed that rival marks must be compared holistically, not dissected. Specifically, in cases involving composite marks, i.e., that contained multiple elements like words and logos, it was important to consider the overall impression created by the mark. The question to ask would be whether the marks viewed in totality conveyed distinct identities. The mere use of a common element, particularly if it were non-distinctive, descriptive or laudatory, would not by itself amount to infringement.
Consequently, Pernod’s attempts at isolating PRIDE as a common element were not successful. The Court emphasized that “PRIDE” alone is non-exclusive. Drawing on precedent, (Godfrey Philips India Ltd. v. Girnar Food & Beverages Pvt. Ltd. (2004) 5 SCC 257; Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., (2001) 5 SCC 73), the Court held that “PRIDE” is a laudatory, ordinary term in the whisky industry and not inherently distinctive. Pernod Ricard could claim no standalone rights in “PRIDE” without evidence of secondary meaning. Additionally, an earlier case (Pernod Ricard India (P) Ltd. v. United Spirits Ltd., (2023) 1 HCC (P&H) 186) had held that Pernod’s rights extended only to the composite “Blenders Pride”, not to “Pride” itself. Thus, the Court said the appellant could not cherry-pick elements from separate trademarks (e.g. combining “Blenders” from one mark with “Blue” from another) to construct a hybrid infringement claim.
Dominant element doctrine
The Court noted that although the law grants exclusive rights to a trademark as a whole, and not to individual non-distinctive components, however, for assessing likelihood of confusion, courts may focus on dominant or essential features within a composite mark. Nevertheless, dominant features could not be isolated, and must always be in context of the mark’s overall impression.
Describing it as the “hook” that generates brand recall, the Court explained further that a dominant feature is itself a composite of various factors, including visual and phonetic prominence, placement within the mark, inherent distinctiveness, and consumer association.
Here, the Court was satisfied that the competing mark did not imitate the dominant features of the appellants’ marks. On a holistic comparison, the Court noted that the trade dress, label design, colour scheme, typography, and brand presentation are all distinctive and unrelated. LONDON as a geographical identifier also suggested a brand identity distinct from ‘BLENDERS’ or ‘IMPERIAL’
Average consumer and imperfect recollection
The Court was mindful that while the average consumer test considers that minor phonetic or visual similarities may cause confusion if features are prominent or memorable, it also noted that consumer attentiveness depends on the goods themselves (e.g., luxury goods warranting greater care as against daily consumer goods).
Here, the average whisky consumer would be reasonably discerning (educated buyers, purchase from sealed cartons), so even with imperfect recollection, confusion was unlikely. The Court used an analogy of mixing a small quantity of milk with water (and vice versa) to explain how the dominant element of a composite mark guides perception.
Post-sale confusion doctrine
The Court also briefly discussed the doctrine of post-sale confusion, particularly its recognition abroad in Iconix Luxembourg Holdings SARL (Respondent) v. Dream Pairs Europe Inc (Appellants,) [2025] UKSC 25, on resale of genuine goods, but held it irrelevant here. The reasoning was that whisky bottles are ordinarily purchased for private consumption, not publicly displayed. Any confusion ‘after sale’ was inapplicable when the goods are not publicly used.
Implications
The decision underscores several important trademark principles.
First, it reinforces that composite marks must be compared as a whole i.e., the rule of anti-dissection, and that the dominant element drives consumer recognition. Second, it confirms that common laudatory or descriptive terms cannot be monopolized absent distinctiveness. In practical terms, a trademark owner cannot claim exclusive rights over a generic word like “PRIDE” simply by combining it with a house-mark. Third, by upholding the concurrent refusal (by the lower courts) of interim relief, the Court signalled that interim injunctions in IP disputes are discretionary and require strong proof of confusion, and that claims based on isolated similarities or fashionable packaging may not be successful. Finally, the Court’s comments on post-sale confusion recognises the growing relevance of the doctrine in Indian jurisprudence and its nuanced application to different categories of goods.
For brand owners, a key takeaway is that they must focus on truly distinctive branding elements, because mere similarity in a laudatory word or colour scheme is unlikely to be sufficient to succeed in trademark infringement or passing off matters.
English
Chinese (Simplified)
Japanese