Brand on the Rocks: Pernod Ricard v. Chhabra and the Limits of Passing Off
In the ever-competitive world of spirits, where a brand’s label often matters as much as the liquor inside the bottle, the battle for intellectual property rights has become as fierce as the struggle for market share.
The case of Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd. v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra serves as a spirited reminder that trademarks are not mere legal technicalities, but the very identity of a brand in the marketplace. This dispute isn’t just centred on the name of a company, but also encompasses its reputation, consumer trust, and the goodwill that a company seeks to establish, much like how a spirit requires a long and tedious process to reach its consumer worth.
Brief Facts of the Case
The appellants of this case, have long held the trademarks for the terms ‘BLENDERS PRIDE’ and ‘IMPERIAL BLUE’. Upon discovering the sale of the Respondent’s whiskey, under the name of ‘LONDON PRIDE’, a suit was filed. The majority of the argument from the appellants stemmed from the allegation that the bottles of London Pride were being sold with embossments and marks that were akin to those of the appellants’ offering. This, according to the appellants, constituted an infringement of their trademark.
The Supreme Court, however, dismissed their claims, arguing that the term ‘PRIDE’ in itself is not a specific term and has common use. Merely using the term does not amount to an infringement. Furthermore, the attempt by the appellants to view the situation in a particular manner resulted in the court highlighting the senselessness of the argument at hand.
Timeline of the Case
May 2019
Pernod Ricard comes to know that Chhabra was distributing whisky under the trademark “London Pride” in packaging and branding that seemed to be identical to their established marks, Blenders Pride and Imperial Blue.
26 November 2020
The Commercial Court in Indore rejected Pernod Ricard’s application for an interim injunction, finding no deceptive similarity between the marks.
November 2023
The Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld the Indore court’s order, denying interim relief and affirming that the marks and packaging were distinguishable.
14 August 2025
The Supreme Court of India delivered its judgment
Issues Advanced
- Whether the term “Pride” could be monopolized by Pernod Ricard.
- Whether the packaging, trade dress, and overall get-up of “London Pride” created deceptive similarity.
- Whether Pernod Ricard had established grounds for the grant of an interim injunction.
Whether consumer perception and sophistication in the liquor industry mitigated the likelihood of confusion.
Arguments Advanced: Appellant
Pernod Ricard claimed that the usage of “London Pride” violated its well-known trademarks “Blenders Pride” and “Imperial Blue.” It emphasised that the word “Pride” was the most prominent and crucial part of its brand identity. The defendant’s adoption was not genuine nor fortuitous, but rather an attempt to capitalise on Pernod Ricard’s goodwill.
Pernod Ricard stated that whisky customers identify “Pride” with its premium line, causing market confusion and deceit. The similarities in packaging, bottle shape, and colour scheme was thought to enhance the danger of consumer deception.
It said that denying the injunction would result in irreparable harm by diluting brand recognition and undermining the individuality of the “Pride” series. As a global brand with a long history of goodwill, the convenience factor favoured protection against copying.
Arguments Advanced: Respondent
Chhabra responded that “pride” is a widespread laudatory term that cannot be monopolised. Permitting exclusivity would give Pernod Ricard an unfair advantage against regular companies in the spirits sector.
The answer emphasised that “London Pride” and “Blenders Pride” should be compared as a whole, not in pieces. Furthermore, sophisticated people buy whisky, particularly premium ones, after carefully selecting the brand. As a result, the risk of confusion was low.
Interim injunctions cannot be obtained in the absence of a compelling prima facie case. Chhabra argued that the trial and High Courts’ denials were warranted.
Judgement
On 14 August 2025, the Supreme Court of India rejected the appeal of Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd., thus upholding the concurrent findings of the Commercial Court (2020) and the Madhya Pradesh High Court (2023). Both the lower courts had declined to grant an interim injunction against the respondent, Karanveer Singh Chhabra, who sold whisky under the trademark “London Pride.
The Court’s reasoning was heavily reliant on the anti-dissection rule of trademark law. It stressed that marks should be contrasted whole, and not analyzed in their component parts.
Pernod Ricard’s contention that the term “Pride” was the dominant and distinctive part of its mark was rejected. The Court noted that the existence of a common word in rival marks cannot by itself prove deceptive similarity, particularly when the overall impression of the marks is quite different.
Another significant finding was on the generic and descriptive nature of terms like “Pride.” The Court explained once again that no trader may assert monopoly on ordinary words of description in branding unless they have obtained exceptional distinctiveness or secondary meaning. In the current case, Pernod Ricard had not established that the word “Pride” was so peculiarly associated with its products that consumers would instantly identify it with its brand exclusively.
The Court also held the test of likelihood of confusion. It held that “Blenders Pride” and “London Pride” were not phonetically, visually, or conceptually similar. Furthermore, whisky, and more so premium whisky, is bought by a more mature consumer class which is less likely to be confused by cosmetic similarities in brand names or packaging.
Lastly, on interim injunction test, the Court made it clear that all three conditions—prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm—have to be fulfilled cumulatively. Inasmuch as Pernod Ricard had failed to show even a prima facie case of infringement, interim relief was not warranted.
In a notable observation, the Court noted that “trademark law protects brand distinctiveness, not descriptive glory.” It warned against big companies suppressing competition by trying to corner common words. Dismissing the appeal, the Court asked the Commercial Court to go ahead with the trial at the earliest and dispose of the suit within four months.
Conclusion
The ruling in Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd. v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra is a significant reaffirmation of Indian trademark law. The Supreme Court underlined that the anti-dissection rule remained fundamental in determining infringement, requiring courts to consider marks as a whole rather than isolating a common characteristic.
By rejecting Pernod Ricard’s effort to monopolise the term “Pride,” the Court upheld the concept that generic and laudatory phrases belong to the public domain and cannot be solely seized by a single merchant unless there is special individuality. Equally important was the Court’s acknowledgement of the consumer sophistication threshold, which held that the ordinary premium whisky customer is discriminating and unlikely to be mislead by surface similarities, so limiting the scope of confusion-based claims.
Author:–Shloke Sarkar, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us at support@ipandlegalfilings.com or IP & Legal Filing.
Bibliography
- Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd. v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra, Civil Appeal No. 10638 of 2025, arising out of SLP (C) No. 28489/2023 (Supreme Court of India, Aug. 14, 2025).
- Supreme Court Junks Pernod Ricard’s Plea Against ‘London Pride’ Whisky Trademark, The Economic Times, Aug. 14, 2025, available at https://m.economictimes.com/industry/cons-products/liquor/supreme-court-junks-pernod-ricards-plea-against-london-pride-whisky-trademark/articleshow/123307798.cms
