Pernod Ricard India Private Limited v. J.K. Enterprises

"‘Pride’ alone doesn’t make the mark — context defines the brand."

Short Description :

Pernod Ricard sought a temporary injunction against J.K. Enterprises (Indore) alleging that its whisky brand ‘London Pride’ infringed on the trademarks of ‘Blenders Pride’ and the trade dress of ‘Imperial Blue’. The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed the plea, holding that there was no likelihood of confusion—given the distinct bottle shape, packaging design, and generic nature of the word “Pride” in both products.

Facts :

⦁ Pernod Ricard manufactures and sells whisky under brands like Blenders Pride (since 1995) and Imperial Blue (since 1997), holding registered trademarks.

⦁ J.K. Enterprises introduced a whisky named London Pride, with different label, bottle, and packaging design, which alleged to be “deceptively similar” by Pernod.

⦁ Pernod Ricard claimed misrepresentation, dilution of goodwill, and urged for immediate injunctive relief.

Findings :

⦁ The Court noted that consumers of premium/ultra-premium whisky are generally well-educated and discerning—they are unlikely to confuse the brands.

⦁ There was no deceptive overall similarity in packaging or bottles—differences were significant in shape, text arrangement, logos, and fonts.

⦁ The word “Pride” was not exclusively owned by Pernod; it lacked distinctiveness and wasn’t separately registered. Also, Pernod had not sought registration for individual components like color or bottle shape.

Judgment :

The Madhya Pradesh High Court rejected Pernod Ricard’s plea for a temporary injunction. It ruled that London Pride did not evoke confusion, dilutive similarity, or mislead consumers. It instead directed that the lower court expedite the proceeding within nine months.

Suggestion / Legal Implication :

⦁ A common word (like “Pride”) within a trademark doesn’t grant exclusivity unless registered separately.

⦁ Trademark infringement assessments must consider overall trade dress, including packaging, design, wording, and consumer perception.

⦁ Courts recognize the sophistication of premium-segment consumers—misleading similarity is less likely in such markets.

⦁ Partial elements (color, shape) are not protected unless specifically registered; trademark rights lie in the mark as a whole.