{"id":357424,"date":"2025-08-22T14:30:15","date_gmt":"2025-08-22T09:00:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=357424"},"modified":"2026-06-18T14:00:33","modified_gmt":"2026-06-18T08:30:33","slug":"sc-on-blenders-pride-trade-mark-infringement-case","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/22\/sc-on-blenders-pride-trade-mark-infringement-case\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court| No interim injunction to Pernod Ricard for mark \u2018Blenders Pride\u2019 against \u2018London Pride\u2019 in a trade mark infringement case"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Supreme Court:<\/span> In the present case, an appeal was filed against the judgment dated 3-11-2023 passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, whereby the appellants\u2019 challenge to the order dated 26-11-2020 passed by the Commercial Court, was dismissed. The Commercial Court had rejected the appellants application for interim injunction restraining the respondent from using the mark \u2018LONDON PRIDE\u2019 alleging that it was deceptively similar to the appellants marks, \u2018BLENDERS PRIDE\u2019, \u2018IMPERIAL BLUE\u2019, and \u2018SEAGRAM\u2019S\u2019, amounting to trade mark infringement.<\/p>\n

The Division Bench of J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan*<\/span>, JJ., opined that trade mark similarity must be assessed by considering the mark as a whole, and not by extracting a single component for comparison and mere presence of the common word \u2018PRIDE\u2019 which was a generic and laudatory term, did not render the competing marks deceptively similar in the absence of an overall resemblance. The appellants\u2019 marks, \u2018BLENDERS PRIDE\u2019, \u2018IMPERIAL BLUE\u2019, and \u2018SEAGRAM\u2019S\u2019, when viewed in entirety were structurally, phonetically, and visually distinct from the respondent\u2019s mark \u2018LONDON PRIDE\u2019. Further, the appellants\u2019 attempt to combine elements from \u2018BLENDERS PRIDE\u2019 and \u2018IMPERIAL BLUE\u2019, to challenge the respondent\u2019s mark \u2018LONDON PRIDE\u2019, constituted a hybrid and untenable pleading. The Court therefore dismissed the appeal as there was no prima facie<\/span> case for grant of interim injunction.<\/p>\n

Background<\/h3>\n

The appellants were engaged in the manufacture and distribution of wines, liquors, and spirits, and sold whisky under the registered trade marks \u2018BLENDERS PRIDE\u2019 and \u2018IMPERIAL BLUE\u2019. They also had a registered mark \u2018SEAGRAM\u2019S\u2019, which served as the house mark of Appellant 1, Pernod Ricard India (P) Ltd. In 1945, the appellants\u2019 predecessor, Seagram Company Limited obtained registration of the mark SEAGRAM\u2019S in Class 33, for \u201cWhisky\u201d and in 1994, for mark \u2018BLENDERS PRIDE\u2019 covering \u201cWines, Spirits and Liqueurs\u201d. The mark \u2018BLENDERS PRIDE\u2019 was in extensive worldwide use since 1973 for whisky products. In 1997, Seagram Co. launched whisky under the mark \u2018IMPERIAL BLUE\u2019 in India and got it registered in Class 33 for \u201calcoholic beverages, except beers\u201d.<\/p>\n

In 2019, the appellants got to know that the respondent was marketing whisky under the mark \u2018LONDON PRIDE\u2019, using packaging that was deceptively similar to them. It was submitted that respondent used \u2018SEAGRAM\u2019S\u2019 embossed bottles of the appellants\u2019 mark \u2018IMPERIAL BLUE\u2019, for the sale of its \u2018LONDON PRIDE\u2019 whisky, which amounted to infringement of SEAGRAM\u2019S mark. The appellants sought a decree of permanent injunction restraining the respondent from trade mark infringement, passing off, copyright violation, etc. By order dated 26-11-2020 and judgment dated 3-11-2023, the Commercial Court and the Madhya Pradesh High Court, respectively, dismissed the interim injunction application. Thus, the appellants were before this Court.<\/p>\n

Analysis, Law, and Decision<\/h3>\n

Similarity and Distinctiveness \u2014 Name, Colour Scheme and Trade Dress<\/p>\n

The Court stated that to assess whether a trade mark was likely to deceive or cause confusion, the focus was on visual appearance, phonetic similarity, the nature of the goods, the class of purchasers, and the manner of sale. The Court opined that the respondent\u2019s mark, when viewed in totality, was not deceptively similar to the appellants registered marks, \u2018BLENDERS PRIDE\u2019, \u2018IMPERIAL BLUE\u2019, and \u2018SEAGRAM\u2019S\u2019, which were inherently distinctive.<\/p>\n

The Court observed that although both parties\u2019 trade dress and colour schemes featured elements of blue and gold, such similarities were insufficient to establish deceptive similarity and even the placement of elements, design of labels, font styles, and emblems differed in material respects. The Court opined that the competing marks did not create such an overall resemblance as was likely to cause confusion or deception in the mind of an average consumer exercising imperfect recollection.<\/p>\n

Rule of Anti-Dissection<\/h3>\n

The marks must be compared as a whole, and not by dissecting them into individual components, as consumers perceive trade marks based on their overall impression, encompassing appearance, sound, structure, and commercial impression. The Court stated that while Section 17<\/a> of the Trade Marks Act, 1999<\/a> restricted exclusive rights to the trade mark as a whole and did not confer protection over individual, non-distinctive components per se, courts might still identify dominant or essential features within a composite mark to assess the likelihood of confusion. However, it did not permit treating such features in isolation and must be evaluated in the context of the overall commercial impression created by the mark.<\/p>\n

The Court stated that in disputes involving composite marks, the mere presence of a shared or generic word in both marks did not, by itself, justify a finding of deceptive similarity. The appellants\u2019 attempt to isolate the word \u2018PRIDE\u2019 as the basis of comparison was legally untenable. The Court opined that trade mark similarity must be assessed by considering the mark as a whole, and not by extracting a single component for comparison. The appellants\u2019 marks, \u2018BLENDERS PRIDE\u2019, \u2018IMPERIAL BLUE\u2019, and \u2018SEAGRAM\u2019S\u2019, when viewed in entirety were structurally, phonetically, and visually distinct from the respondent\u2019s mark \u2018LONDON PRIDE\u2019. The mere presence of the common word \u2018PRIDE\u2019 which was a generic and laudatory term, did not render the competing marks deceptively similar in the absence of an overall resemblance. Thus, under the anti-dissection rule, no case for infringement or passing off was made out.<\/p>\n

Dominant Feature Test<\/h3>\n

In composite marks such as \u2018BLENDERS PRIDE\u2019 or \u2018IMPERIAL BLUE\u2019, the terms \u2018BLENDERS\u2019 and \u2018IMPERIAL\u2019 might be regarded as dominant, owing to their distinctive and less frequently used character. The elements such as \u2018PRIDE\u2019 or \u2018BLUE\u2019 were relatively generic, descriptive, or commonplace in the liquor industry, like other marks ROCKFORD PRIDE, ROYAL PRIDE, or OAK PRIDE. The Court opined that such shared or non-distinctive terms could not be monopolized, unless it was established that they had acquired secondary meaning through extensive and exclusive use, and were uniquely associated with specific goods in the minds of the public.<\/p>\n

The Court stated that the overall commercial impression of \u2018LONDON PRIDE\u2019 was substantially different from either of the appellants\u2019 marks. The trade dress, label design, colour scheme, typography, and brand presentation were all distinctive and unrelated. The term \u2018LONDON\u2019 introduces a geographical identifier that conveyed a distinct brand identity, divergent from \u2018BLENDERS\u2019 or \u2018IMPERIAL\u2019. The respondent\u2019s mark, therefore, did not imitate the dominant features of the appellants\u2019 marks.<\/p>\n

No Exclusive Right Over Common or Descriptive Terms<\/h3>\n

The word \u2018PRIDE\u2019 was a laudatory and commonly used English term, employed to suggest notions of excellence, heritage, or national identity. Under Class 33, there were multiple registrations, such as McDowell\u2019s Pride, Highland Pride, Royal Pride, and Pride of India, all incorporating the term \u2018PRIDE\u2019. This widespread usage illustrated that the word \u2018PRIDE\u2019 was publici juris, not inherently distinctive, and therefore incapable of exclusive appropriation in the absence of compelling evidence of secondary meaning.<\/p>\n

In the present case, the appellants failed to produce consumer surveys, brand recognition studies, or consistent third-party references, to demonstrate that the term \u2018PRIDE\u2019 had acquired secondary meaning exclusively pointing to their product. The marks \u2018BLENDERS PRIDE\u2019 and \u2018LONDON PRIDE\u2019 were visually, phonetically, and conceptually distinct and in the absence of demonstrable confusion or misrepresentation, the respondent\u2019s use did not amount to infringement under Section 29, nor did it constitute passing off.<\/p>\n

Average Consumer Test and Imperfect Recollection<\/h3>\n

The average consumer test assessed whether there existed a likelihood of confusion between two marks, or whether a mark lacked distinctiveness or was merely descriptive. In it, the test was the recognition that consumers rarely recalled trade marks with perfect accuracy, whereas the doctrine of imperfect recollection emphasized the importance of first impression.<\/p>\n

The Court stated that the appellants\u2019 marks \u2018BLENDERS PRIDE\u2019, \u2018IMPERIAL BLUE\u2019, and \u2018SEAGRAM\u2019S\u2019, convey distinct commercial impressions, when compared with the respondent\u2019s mark \u2018LONDON PRIDE\u2019. The overall visual appearance, phonetic structure, and trade dress, though sharing some generic elements such as use of blue and gold, were sufficiently different. These structural and conceptual dissimilarities outweigh incidental similarities, negating the likelihood of confusion in the mind of a consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection. Thus, the Court held that the respondent\u2019s mark was not deceptively similar.<\/p>\n

Post-Sale Confusion Doctrine<\/h3>\n

The doctrine though well recognized in US and UK, was still relatively novel in India. The post-sale confusion referred to the confusion that occurred not at the point of purchase, but rather after the product had been bought and was seen in use by others. It focused on the deceptive appearance of legitimacy, which could impair the distinctiveness and perceived exclusivity of the genuine product. It was relevant in sectors like fashion, luxury goods, automobiles, and food items, where brand visibility and public perception were essential aspects of consumer engagement and brand equity. The Court thus opined that, the goods in the present case were not intended for public display and were for private consumption. Therefore, the doctrine of post-sale confusion, while significant, was not directly applicable to the facts of the present matter.<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/h3>\n

The Court opined that there was no deceptive similarity between the competing marks that would give rise to confusion. The respondent’s marks, in their entirety, did not show visual, phonetic, or structural similarity to lead to a real and tangible likelihood of confusion in the mind of an average consumer possessing imperfect recollection. The overall trade dress, distinctive components, and market presentation of the respondent\u2019s product sufficiently distinguished it from that of the appellants.<\/p>\n

The Commercial Court and High Court had rightly held that the term \u2018PRIDE\u2019 was publici juris<\/span> and commonly used in the liquor industry. The Court further held that the Courts below rightly observed that the products in present case were premium and ultra-premium whiskies, targeted at a discerning consumer base, that were likely to exercise greater care in their purchase decisions. Further, the appellants\u2019 attempt to combine elements from \u2018BLENDERS PRIDE\u2019 and \u2018IMPERIAL BLUE\u2019, to challenge the respondent\u2019s mark \u2018LONDON PRIDE\u2019, constituted a hybrid and untenable pleading. Also, cherry-picking generic or unregistered features from multiple marks to fabricate a composite case of infringement was not legally sustainable.<\/p>\n

The Court dismissed the appeal and held there was no ground to interfere with the findings of the Commercial Court and the High Court and there was no prima facie<\/span> case for grant of interim injunction.<\/p>\n

[Pernod Ricard India (P) Ltd. v. \u00a0Karanveer Singh Chhabra<\/b> 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1701<\/a>, decided on 14-8-2025<\/span>]<\/p>\n

*Judgment authored by: Justice R. Mahadevan<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

Advocates who appeared in this case:<\/p>\n

For the Appellants:<\/span> Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Senior Advocate; Mohit D. Ram, AOR; Hemant Singh, Mamta Jha; Sambhav Jain, Akhil Saxena, Reha Mohan, Rajul Shrivastav, Monisha Handa, Anubhav Sharma, Sidhant Oberoi, Akanksha Majumdar, Nayan Gupta, Sabir Kachhi, Pritha Suri, Ira Mahajan, Tabeer Riyaz, Advocates.<\/p>\n

For the Respondent:<\/span> Ekansh Mishra, AOR; Vaibhav Mishra, Ayush Jain, Advocates.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The products in the present case are premium and ultra-premium whiskies, targeted at a discerning consumer base, that are likely to exercise greater care in their purchase decisions. The distinct trade dress and packaging reduce any likelihood of confusion.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":357441,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,9],"tags":[54525,87727,57835,87730,87725,52955,87726,87728,61286,49365,70880,62821,14722,59501,87729,5363,42104],"class_list":["post-357424","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-supremecourt","tag-anti-dissection-rule","tag-average-consumer-test","tag-blenders-pride","tag-blenders-pride-london-pride","tag-blenders-pride-trade-mark-infringement-case","tag-deceptively-similar","tag-dominant-feature-test","tag-imperfect-recollection","tag-imperial-blue","tag-justice-j-b-pardiwala","tag-justice-r-mahadevan","tag-london-pride","tag-passing-off","tag-pernod-ricard","tag-post-sale-confusion-doctrine","tag-supreme-court","tag-trade-marks-act"],"yoast_head":"\nSC on Blenders Pride trade mark infringement case | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Supreme Court denied interim injunction to Pernod Ricard in 'Blenders Pride' trade mark infringement case, against 'London Pride'.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/22\/sc-on-blenders-pride-trade-mark-infringement-case\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Supreme Court| No interim injunction to Pernod Ricard for mark \u2018Blenders Pride\u2019 against \u2018London Pride\u2019 in a trade mark infringement case\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Supreme Court denied interim injunction to Pernod Ricard in 'Blenders Pride' trade mark infringement case, against 'London Pride'.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/22\/sc-on-blenders-pride-trade-mark-infringement-case\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-08-22T09:00:15+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-06-18T08:30:33+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/blog-49-1.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Simranjeet\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Supreme Court| No interim injunction to Pernod Ricard for mark \u2018Blenders Pride\u2019 against \u2018London Pride\u2019 in a trade mark infringement case\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Simranjeet\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/08\\\/22\\\/sc-on-blenders-pride-trade-mark-infringement-case\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/08\\\/22\\\/sc-on-blenders-pride-trade-mark-infringement-case\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Simranjeet\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/aaee99423671d3377042373c5dcdabbd\"},\"headline\":\"Supreme Court| No interim injunction to Pernod Ricard for mark \u2018Blenders Pride\u2019 against \u2018London Pride\u2019 in a trade mark infringement case\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-08-22T09:00:15+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-06-18T08:30:33+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/08\\\/22\\\/sc-on-blenders-pride-trade-mark-infringement-case\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1790,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/08\\\/22\\\/sc-on-blenders-pride-trade-mark-infringement-case\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/08\\\/blog-49-1.webp\",\"keywords\":[\"anti-dissection rule\",\"Average Consumer Test\",\"Blenders Pride\",\"Blenders Pride London Pride\",\"Blenders Pride trade mark infringement case\",\"Deceptively Similar\",\"Dominant Feature Test\",\"Imperfect Recollection\",\"Imperial Blue\",\"Justice J.B. Pardiwala\",\"justice R. mahadevan\",\"London Pride\",\"Passing off\",\"Pernod Ricard\",\"Post-Sale Confusion Doctrine\",\"Supreme Court\",\"Trade Marks Act\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Case Briefs\",\"Supreme Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/08\\\/22\\\/sc-on-blenders-pride-trade-mark-infringement-case\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/08\\\/22\\\/sc-on-blenders-pride-trade-mark-infringement-case\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/08\\\/22\\\/sc-on-blenders-pride-trade-mark-infringement-case\\\/\",\"name\":\"SC on Blenders Pride trade mark infringement case | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/08\\\/22\\\/sc-on-blenders-pride-trade-mark-infringement-case\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/08\\\/22\\\/sc-on-blenders-pride-trade-mark-infringement-case\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/08\\\/blog-49-1.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-08-22T09:00:15+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-06-18T08:30:33+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/aaee99423671d3377042373c5dcdabbd\"},\"description\":\"Supreme Court denied interim injunction to Pernod Ricard in 'Blenders Pride' trade mark infringement case, against 'London Pride'.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/08\\\/22\\\/sc-on-blenders-pride-trade-mark-infringement-case\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/08\\\/22\\\/sc-on-blenders-pride-trade-mark-infringement-case\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/08\\\/22\\\/sc-on-blenders-pride-trade-mark-infringement-case\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/08\\\/blog-49-1.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/08\\\/blog-49-1.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"Blenders Pride trade mark\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/08\\\/22\\\/sc-on-blenders-pride-trade-mark-infringement-case\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Supreme Court| No interim injunction to Pernod Ricard for mark \u2018Blenders Pride\u2019 against \u2018London Pride\u2019 in a trade mark infringement case\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/aaee99423671d3377042373c5dcdabbd\",\"name\":\"Simranjeet\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/03d92c7ef8267a8c57730c194d10ea045f0dc6cb00ce27a633a2e25adccce1c9?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/03d92c7ef8267a8c57730c194d10ea045f0dc6cb00ce27a633a2e25adccce1c9?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/03d92c7ef8267a8c57730c194d10ea045f0dc6cb00ce27a633a2e25adccce1c9?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Simranjeet\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/author\\\/scc\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"SC on Blenders Pride trade mark infringement case | SCC Times","description":"Supreme Court denied interim injunction to Pernod Ricard in 'Blenders Pride' trade mark infringement case, against 'London Pride'.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/22\/sc-on-blenders-pride-trade-mark-infringement-case\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Supreme Court| No interim injunction to Pernod Ricard for mark \u2018Blenders Pride\u2019 against \u2018London Pride\u2019 in a trade mark infringement case","og_description":"Supreme Court denied interim injunction to Pernod Ricard in 'Blenders Pride' trade mark infringement case, against 'London Pride'.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/22\/sc-on-blenders-pride-trade-mark-infringement-case\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2025-08-22T09:00:15+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-06-18T08:30:33+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/blog-49-1.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Simranjeet","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Supreme Court| No interim injunction to Pernod Ricard for mark \u2018Blenders Pride\u2019 against \u2018London Pride\u2019 in a trade mark infringement case","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Simranjeet","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/22\/sc-on-blenders-pride-trade-mark-infringement-case\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/22\/sc-on-blenders-pride-trade-mark-infringement-case\/"},"author":{"name":"Simranjeet","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/aaee99423671d3377042373c5dcdabbd"},"headline":"Supreme Court| No interim injunction to Pernod Ricard for mark \u2018Blenders Pride\u2019 against \u2018London Pride\u2019 in a trade mark infringement case","datePublished":"2025-08-22T09:00:15+00:00","dateModified":"2026-06-18T08:30:33+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/22\/sc-on-blenders-pride-trade-mark-infringement-case\/"},"wordCount":1790,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/22\/sc-on-blenders-pride-trade-mark-infringement-case\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/blog-49-1.webp","keywords":["anti-dissection rule","Average Consumer Test","Blenders Pride","Blenders Pride London Pride","Blenders Pride trade mark infringement case","Deceptively Similar","Dominant Feature Test","Imperfect Recollection","Imperial Blue","Justice J.B. Pardiwala","justice R. mahadevan","London Pride","Passing off","Pernod Ricard","Post-Sale Confusion Doctrine","Supreme Court","Trade Marks Act"],"articleSection":["Case Briefs","Supreme Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/22\/sc-on-blenders-pride-trade-mark-infringement-case\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/22\/sc-on-blenders-pride-trade-mark-infringement-case\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/22\/sc-on-blenders-pride-trade-mark-infringement-case\/","name":"SC on Blenders Pride trade mark infringement case | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/22\/sc-on-blenders-pride-trade-mark-infringement-case\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/22\/sc-on-blenders-pride-trade-mark-infringement-case\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/blog-49-1.webp","datePublished":"2025-08-22T09:00:15+00:00","dateModified":"2026-06-18T08:30:33+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/aaee99423671d3377042373c5dcdabbd"},"description":"Supreme Court denied interim injunction to Pernod Ricard in 'Blenders Pride' trade mark infringement case, against 'London Pride'.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/22\/sc-on-blenders-pride-trade-mark-infringement-case\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/22\/sc-on-blenders-pride-trade-mark-infringement-case\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/22\/sc-on-blenders-pride-trade-mark-infringement-case\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/blog-49-1.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/blog-49-1.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"Blenders Pride trade mark"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/22\/sc-on-blenders-pride-trade-mark-infringement-case\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Supreme Court| No interim injunction to Pernod Ricard for mark \u2018Blenders Pride\u2019 against \u2018London Pride\u2019 in a trade mark infringement case"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/aaee99423671d3377042373c5dcdabbd","name":"Simranjeet","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/03d92c7ef8267a8c57730c194d10ea045f0dc6cb00ce27a633a2e25adccce1c9?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/03d92c7ef8267a8c57730c194d10ea045f0dc6cb00ce27a633a2e25adccce1c9?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/03d92c7ef8267a8c57730c194d10ea045f0dc6cb00ce27a633a2e25adccce1c9?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Simranjeet"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/blog-49-1.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/357424","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=357424"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/357424\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":387563,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/357424\/revisions\/387563"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/357441"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=357424"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=357424"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=357424"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}