1. Dispute over trademark infringement and passing off involving registered marks for alcoholic beverages and a competing mark using a common laudatory term. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1202
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
Pernod Ricard India Private Limited & Another – Appellants
Versus
Karanveer Singh Chhabra – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 10638 of 2025 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 28489 of 2023]
Decided on : 14-08-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Adv. Mr. Hemant Singh, Adv. Ms. Mamta Jha, Adv. Mr. Mohit D. Ram, AOR Mr. Sambhav Jain, Adv. Mr. Akhil Saxena, Adv. Ms. Reha Mohan, Adv. Mr. Rajul Shrivastav, Adv. Ms. Monisha Handa, Adv. Mr. Anubhav Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sidhant Oberoi, Adv. Ms. Akanksha Majumdar, Adv. Ms. Nayan Gupta, Adv. Mr. Sabir Kachhi, Adv. Ms. Pritha Suri, Adv. Ms. Ira Mahajan, Adv. Ms. Tabeer riyaz, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ekansh Mishra, AOR Mr. Vaibhav Mishra, Adv. Mr. Ayush Jain, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Adv. Mr. Hemant Singh, Adv. Ms. Mamta Jha, Adv. Mr. Mohit D. Ram, AOR Mr. Sambhav Jain, Adv. Mr. Akhil Saxena, Adv. Ms. Reha Mohan, Adv. Mr. Rajul Shrivastav, Adv. Ms. Monisha Handa, Adv. Mr. Anubhav Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sidhant Oberoi, Adv. Ms. Akanksha Majumdar, Adv. Ms. Nayan Gupta, Adv. Mr. Sabir Kachhi, Adv. Ms. Pritha Suri, Adv. Ms. Ira Mahajan, Adv. Ms. Tabeer riyaz, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ekansh Mishra, AOR Mr. Vaibhav Mishra, Adv. Mr. Ayush Jain, Adv.
The Court reaffirmed the anti-dissection rule, stating trademarks must be compared as a whole. Common, laudatory terms cannot be monopolized unless they acquire secondary meaning. Deceptive similarity is assessed based on the overall commercial impression from the perspective of an average consumer with imperfect recollection.
Headnote:(A) Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Sections 2(h), 28, 29, 27(2) - Trademark infringement and passing off - Appellants sought an interim injunction against respondents for using deceptively similar mark 'LONDON PRIDE' - The High Court dismissed the appeal, ruling 'LONDON PRIDE' not similar to registered marks 'BLENDERS PRIDE' and 'IMPERIAL BLUE' due to distinct visual and phonetic dissimilarity - Word 'PRIDE' considered common and non-distinctive; no exclusive rights claimed - Court emphasized evaluation of marks must be holistic, not dissection by components. (Paras 31-52)
Facts of the case:
Appellants claimed that respondents' use of the mark 'LONDON PRIDE' infringed their registered trademarks 'BLENDERS PRIDE', 'IMPERIAL BLUE', and 'SEAGRAM’S' due to deceptive similarity, alleging significant market presence and consumer confusion potential.
Findings of Court:
The appellants failed to prove deceptive similarity or confusion, the term 'PRIDE' being generic and commonly used. No prima facie case established for injunctive relief as the competing marks were sufficiently dissimilar in overall impression and trade dress.
Issues: The key queries addressed by the court included the legitimacy of the claim concerning trademark infringement, particularly the assessment of similarity and consumer perception.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that trademark comparison must focus on overall impression and not merely dissect words; shared elements in composite marks must not dictate deeming likelihood of confusion without evaluating the entirety.
Result: Appeal dismissed; the judgment confirms that no injunction will be granted as no legal basis was established.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- intellectual property law
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Appellants claim deceptive similarity and misappropriation of goodwill; Respondent contends the marks are distinct and the shared term is generic and publici juris. (Para 14 , 15 )
3. The marks are structurally and phonetically distinct; the shared term is laudatory and common to the trade; trade dress similarities are generic and insufficient for confusion. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 )
4. Deceptive similarity is assessed holistically via the anti-dissection rule; generic or laudatory terms cannot be monopolized unless they acquire secondary meaning. (Para 32 , 34 )
5. Appeal dismissed; trial court directed to dispose of the suit on merits within four months. (Para 58 )
6. How should composite trademarks be compared to determine deceptive similarity?
Marks must be compared as a whole rather than dissected into individual components. The assessment focuses on the overall commercial impression, including appearance, sound, and structure, from the perspective of an average consumer with imperfect recollection. (Para 32 )
7. Can a proprietor claim exclusive rights over a generic or laudatory term within a registered trademark?
No, generic, descriptive, or laudatory terms common to a trade cannot be monopolized unless they have acquired secondary meaning, where the public exclusively associates the term with a specific commercial source. (Para 34 )
8. What is the role of the dominant feature test in trademark analysis?
The dominant feature—the most distinctive and memorable element—serves as an analytical aid in holistic comparison. While it can influence consumer perception, the ultimate test remains whether the mark as a whole creates a deceptive similarity. (Para 33 )
9. What standard is applied to assess the likelihood of confusion in trademark disputes?
The average consumer test evaluates whether a reasonably well-informed and observant person with imperfect recollection would be deceived. The degree of attentiveness varies based on the nature of the goods, such as premium products. (Para 35 )
JUDGMENT :
R. MAHADEVAN, J.
Leave granted. For the sake of convenience and in order to facilitate a structured analysis, this judgment is arranged under the following heads:
Sl. No. | HEADINGS | |
I | INTRODUCTION | |
II | FACTUAL MATRIX | |
III | CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES | |
IV | ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION | |
V | STATUTORY FRAMEWORK – OVERVIEW OF RELEVANT PROVISIONS FROM THE TRADE MARK ACT, 1999 | |
VI | JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS | |
VII | ANALYSIS AND APPLICATION OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES | |
(A) SIMILARITY AND DISTINCTIVENESS - NAME, COLOUR SCHEME, AND TRADE DRESS | ||
(B) ANTI-DISSECTION RULE | ||
(C) DOMINANT FEATURE TEST | ||
(D) NO EXCLUSIVE RIGHT OVER COMMON OR DESCRIPTIVE TERMS | ||
(E) AVERAGE CONSUMER TEST AND IMPERFECT RECOLLECTION | ||
(F) LEGAL PRINCIPLES GOVERNING GRANT OF INTERIM INJUNCTION | ||
VIII | RECENT EVOLUTION OF TRADEMARK JURISPRUDENCE IN THE UK – THE POST- SALE CONFUSION DOCTRINE | |
IX | SUMMARY OF FINDINGS | |
X | CONCLUSION | |
I. INTRODUCTION
1. The Law of trademarks has been aptly described by Justice Frankfurter of the United States Supreme Court in the following words:
“The protection of trademarks is the law’s recognition of the psychological function of symbols. If it is true that we live by symbols, it is no less true that we purchase goods by them. A trademark is a merchandising shortcut which induces a purchaser to select what he wants, or what he has been led to believe he wants. The owner of a trademark exploits this human propensity by making every human effort to impregnate the atmosphere of the market with the drawing power of a congenial symbol. Whatever the means employed, the aim is the same – to convey through the mark, in the minds of potential customers, the desirability of the commodity upon which it appears. Once this is attained, the trademark owner has something of value. If another poaches upon the commercial magnetism of the symbol he has created, the owner can obtain legal redress”.
– Mishawaka Rubber and Woolen Manufacturing Co. v. S.S. Kresge Co., 316 US 203 (1942).
2. Trademarks are central to the identity, survival, and growth of any business operating in a competitive commercial environment. They enable enterprises to establish consumer trust and preserve the goodwill built over time through substantial investments in quality, service, and brand visibility. For consumers, trademarks serve as indicators of the source and consistent quality of goods or services across different providers, thereby enabling them to make informed choices, which may, at a minimum, affect taste and preference, and at a maximum, impact their health and well-being. It is, therefore, imperative that intellectual property rights are robustly protected against infringing entities that seek to unfairly capitalize on another’s goodwill, to the detriment of both the rightful owner and the end consumer.
3. At the heart of trademark law lies the foundational principle that there must be no likelihood of confusion in the mind of the average consumer. In cases involving composite marks, it is not necessary that the impugned mark replicate the original in its entirety; even partial imitation may amount to infringement or passing off if it evokes an association with the registered or prior-used mark in the consumer’s mind.
4. However, the application of this principle is nuanced. Courts are not expected to adopt a mechanical, side-by-side comparison of the marks. Rather, judicial scrutiny is guided by interpretative doctrines such as the anti-dissection rule and the doctrine of the dominant mark, inter alia, other well-established tests. Although these principles are frequently applied in tandem, they do not always align perfectly, and courts have differed in their application depending on the specific facts and context of each case.
5. The present case offers an opportunity for this Court to clarify the appropriate analytical framework for evaluating competing trademarks. While the anti-dissection rule – which requires the mark to be considered as a whole – has statutory foundation under the TRADE MARKS ACT , 1999, the doctrine of t
