What principle did the Supreme Court affirm in Pernod Ricard v. Chhabra?

The Court reaffirmed the anti-dissection rule in trademark law—marks must be compared in their entirety. Common or descriptive words like “Pride” cannot be monopolised unless they acquire distinctiveness.

The Supreme Court of India, in its recent judgment dated 14 August 2025, delivered an important ruling in the matter of Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd. v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra (Civil Appeal No. 10638 of 2025). The case sheds light on how courts view common words in composite trademarks and the standards for granting interim injunctions in trademark disputes.

Background

Pernod Ricard, the maker of popular whisky brands such as Blenders Pride, Imperial Blue, and the house mark Seagram’s, approached the courts alleging infringement and passing off against Karanveer Singh Chhabra, who introduced a whisky brand under the name London Pride.

The company claimed that:

• The word “Pride” in London Pride was deceptively similar to its own Blenders Pride.
• The packaging and bottle design created a likelihood of consumer confusion.
• Bottles embossed with “Seagram’s” were being misused.

Pernod Ricard sought an interim injunction to restrain the use of London Pride.

Proceedings Before Lower Courts

Both the Commercial Court and later the Madhya Pradesh High Court rejected the request for injunction, holding that the marks and trade dress were not deceptively similar enough to warrant immediate restraint.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ findings and dismissed Pernod Ricard’s appeal. Key observations included:

• Common Words: The term “Pride” is laudatory and non-distinctive. Pernod Ricard could not claim monopoly over it unless distinctiveness was proven.
• Comparison as a Whole: Marks must be assessed in their entirety. Blenders Pride and London Pride were not similar enough to mislead an average consumer.
• Trade Dress: The overall packaging and get-up had sufficient differences.
• Interim Relief Standard: For an injunction, a prima facie case, irreparable harm, and balance of convenience must be established. Pernod Ricard failed to meet this threshold at the interim stage.

Key Takeaways

• No monopoly on common words: Businesses cannot claim exclusive rights over generic or laudatory terms unless they have acquired distinctiveness.
• Anti-dissection rule: Courts compare trademarks as a whole, not by isolating individual elements.
• Caution in interim injunctions: Even established brands must demonstrate clear deceptive similarity and irreparable harm to succeed at the interim stage.