Recently, the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal seeking to restrain the sale of whisky under the brand LONDON PRIDE. The Appellant, the manufacturers of well-known brands BLENDERS PRIDE and IMPERIAL BLUE, alleged that the Respondent’s use of the word PRIDE in their products, combined with similar colour schemes, bottle shapes, and packaging, amounted to infringement and passing off. However, the Commercial Court and the Madhya Pradesh High Court rejected the Appellant’s application seeking relief. Thus, the present appeal was filed.

The Court held that the word ‘Pride’ is a generic, laudatory term commonly used in the liquor industry. Further, there is no cogent evidence to show that the word had acquired distinctiveness. The Court also observed that such premium and ultra-premium products are aimed at a specific segment of consumers. These consumers tend to exercise careful consideration while making purchase decisions, reducing the likelihood of any confusion. Applying the anti-dissection rule, the Court held that trademarks must be compared as a whole, and not by isolating individual components. Applying the anti-dissection rule, the Court held that when assessing similarity between rival marks, the marks must be compared as a whole rather than isolating individual components. Taking into account the perspective of an average consumer with imperfect recollection, the Court found that the rival marks, BLENDERS PRIDE and LONDON PRIDE, are structurally, phonetically, and visually distinct.

The Court ruled that the Appellant failed to establish a prima facie case of deceptive similarity between BLENDERS PRIDE and LONDON PRIDE. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.  

Source: Pernod Ricard India Private Limited v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra [2025 INSC 981]