Pernod Ricard, the producer of popular brands such as Blenders Pride, Imperial Blue, and Seagram’s, has sued Karanveer Singh Chhabra, the owner of JK Enterprises, the creator of London Pride whisky. The corporation argued that the new brand is deceptively similar to its registered trademarks, and the use of the word "Pride" in the name could evoke associations with Blenders Pride. According to the company, the similarities concerned not only the word itself but also the graphic design of the packaging, the color scheme, the labels, and the overall aesthetics of the product, which, according to the plaintiff, could mislead customers. The claims included a ban on further use of the disputed trademark, the obligation to destroy infringing materials, and compensation in the amount of one million rupees. In addition, even before the case was decided, the company demanded that the sale of London Pride be suspended through a court order.
The defendant argued that London Pride was a completely distinct brand from Blenders Pride, both visually and phonetically. He pointed out that the word "Pride" is a laudatory term commonly used in the alcohol industry, and its use cannot constitute a monopoly for one company. At least 48 other whisky brands containing "Pride" in their name are registered, which confirms the commonality of this term. The Commercial Court and the High Court of Madhya Pradesh agreed with this argument. It was emphasized that the shape of the bottles, the color schemes, and the logos of the products of both parties differ significantly. It was also pointed out that the consumer profile – customers of premium whisky are usually aware of their choices and able to distinguish between brands. There was also no evidence of actual consumer confusion.
The Supreme Court, which ultimately heard the case, upheld the previous rulings after conducting an analysis, stating that trademark protection applies to the entirety of the registered mark, and not to individual words within it, unless those words are separately registered. The judges ruled that "Pride" is a term in public use – that is, common in the relevant industry – and as such, cannot be monopolized. During the proceedings, the Supreme Court even considered the possibility of persuading the defendant to change the visual elements of the brand, but ultimately decided to rule on the merits of the case. The justification also referred to a similar case from September 2023, in which Pernod Ricard was denied interim protection in a dispute with United Spirits, the producer of "Royal Challengers American Pride" whiskey.
This ruling has broad implications not only for alcohol producers but also for the entire luxury goods market. The verdict confirms that single, descriptive terms, such as “Pride,” “Royal,” or “Gold,” cannot be easily monopolized by a single company if they are commonly used in the industry and have not n registered as independent trademarks. For businesses, this means the need to build a competitive advantage through unique brand elements – from distinctive names to characteristic visual designs. The Supreme Court’s decision may become a point of reference for future disputes involving conflicts between trademark protection and freedom of competition. The message is clear: the law should not be used to block the use of words that have long n part of the common language of the industry.
Fill out the form, and we will get back to you within the next 1-2 business days with a preliminary quote.
