The Apex Court has held in a recent judgement dated 14 August 2025 that isolated similarity does not attract trademark infringement. In Pernod Ricard India Private Limited vs Karanveer Singh Chhabra, a bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan dismissed the appeal and did not interfere with the findings of the Commercial Court and the High Court. The request for an interim injunction order was rejected because the appellants failed to establish grounds for deceptive similarity leading to trademark violation.
The plaintiffs are Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd., manufacturers of well-known whisky brands ‘BLENDERS PRIDE’, since 1995 and ‘IMPERIAL BLUE’ since 1997, the turnover of both amounting to ₹4,400 Cr. Both marks are registered. The defendant was London Pride Distillers Ltd., selling whisky under the mark ‘LONDON PRIDE’. There were allegations of trademark infringement and passing off due to deceptive similarity.
The bench referred to the Anti-Dissection Rule from a prior decision in Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navratna Pharmaceuticals Laboratories wherein it was expressly cautioned against isolating individual parts of a composite mark, as such an approach disregards how consumers actually experience and recall trademarks. The Dominant Feature Test is not exclusive either, and it is based on the element which is most distinctive, memorable, and likely to influence consumer perception.
Common words like “PRIDE” cannot be benchmarked unless secondary meaning is proven. The similarity in these meanings cannot be isolated, which includes trade dress protection too. The bench found that “BLENDERS PRIDE” and “LONDON PRIDE” are distinct and the word “PRIDE” does not have distinctiveness. Claims cannot be made on bottle shape or colour scheme since they are not independently enforceable. Also, since the products in questions prepare premium and ultra-premium whiskeys targeted at a discerning customer base, the consumers are likely to exercise greater care when making purchases. The shared use of the laudatory word ‘PRIDE’, in isolation, cannot form the basis for injunctive relief.
