Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Right to Promotion is Legitimate Expectation; Marriage-Based Transfer Can't Defeat It: Himachal Pradesh High Court
12 Mar 2026
Section 4 Official Secrets Act Presumption and Prima Facie Evidence Bar Bail in Espionage Case: Punjab & Haryana HC
14 Mar 2026
Centre Revokes Wangchuk's NSA Detention Amid SC Challenge
14 Mar 2026
No Interference Allowed in Religious Prayers on Private Premises: Allahabad HC Cites Maranatha Precedent
14 Mar 2026
No Proof of Absolute Ownership by Mizo Chiefs Bars Fundamental Rights Claim Under Article 31: Supreme Court
14 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, ALOK JAIN
Pernod Ricard India Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
United Spirits Limited – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT
Mr. Alok Jain, J.
The present appeal arises out of the order dated 17.01.2022, whereby, the learned Court below has dismissed the application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, filed by the appellant, inter alia, praying for restraining the defendants from infringing the trademark "Blenders Pride" by using, manufacturing and selling the goods under the alleged Trademark "Royal Challenger American Pride".
2. The brief facts of the case, as narrated by learned Senior counsel for the appellant, are that the Trademark "Blenders Pride" was adopted by the predecessor of the appellant-Company namely, the Seagrams Company Limited in the year 1973, for which it had obtained registration of the Trade Mark "Blenders Pride" vide Trademark Registration No.623365 in Clause 33, which relates to and deals in respect of wines, spirits and liquors. The said registration was dated 25
Point of Law : Section 27 of Trade Marks Act provides that no action for infringement will lie in respect of an unregistered trade mark.
The court upheld the plaintiff's rights as the prior user and registered owner of the trademark, granting an injunction against the defendant's use of a similar mark due to the likelihood of consumer....
In trademark infringement actions, a presumption of confusion arises if the defendant's mark is identical to that of the registered trademark, fostering the entitlement to interim injunction.
The principle of prior user of a trademark prevails over subsequent registrations, especially when confusion or association is likely between goods and services of similar trade sectors.
The main legal point established is the protection of registered trademarks under the Trade Marks Act, emphasizing the exclusive rights of the registered proprietor, infringement of trademarks, and t....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article