Does Blenders Pride Hold Exclusive Rights Over ‘Pride’?
Click to start listening
Synopsis
The Supreme Court's ruling in the Blenders Pride vs London Pride case marks a pivotal moment in Indian trademark law. The Court has established that generic terms cannot be monopolized by corporations, ensuring fair use in commerce. This decision reinforces the importance of trademark registration while distinguishing between unique and generic terms.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court ruled against exclusive rights over the term 'Pride'.
- Generic terms must remain available for fair use in trade.
- Pernod Ricard's claims of infringement were dismissed by the courts.
- This ruling sets an important precedent for trademark law in India.
- Distinct trademarks must be established to avoid confusion.
New Delhi, Aug 19 (NationPress) Advocate Ayush Jain, representing the Supreme Court in the trademark conflict between Blenders Pride and London Pride, lauded the apex court’s decision as a significant milestone in the realm of Indian intellectual property law.
He stated that the ruling clarifies that Pernod Ricard, the producer of Blenders Pride, cannot claim exclusive rights to the term “Pride,” affirming London Pride’s distinct trademark identity.
Jain characterized the judgment as a firm reminder that dominant corporations cannot extend their trademark privileges beyond the limits of registration.
“The Supreme Court has unequivocally indicated that Blenders Pride is a registered trademark in its entirety, yet the company cannot assert a monopoly over the term ‘Pride’. This safeguards generic terms for fair commercial use,” he remarked.
This legal dispute traces back to 2020 when Pernod Ricard, via its Indian subsidiary, initiated a civil lawsuit in the Indore Commercial Court, claiming that JK Enterprises’ whisky brand London Pride violated its registered trademark, Blenders Pride.
The company contended that the notable usage of the word “Pride” in *London Pride* was likely to confuse consumers.
Furthermore, it alleged similarities in packaging, colour scheme, and labeling, seeking a permanent injunction against the brand name, destruction of the alleged infringing materials, and damages amounting to Rs 1 crore.
The Indore Commercial Court dismissed the injunction request, noting the distinct nature of the trademarks Blenders Pride and London Pride.
It ruled that the mere appearance of the common term “Pride” did not equate to infringement, especially since both brands differed in pricing, flavour, quality, and target market.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld this ruling in November 2023. Undeterred, Pernod Ricard escalated the issue to the Supreme Court.
After approximately 18 months of arguments led by senior lawyers Mukul Rohatgi and Neeraj Kishan Kaul for Pernod Ricard, as well as Shyam Divan and Abhimanyu Bhandari for London Pride, a bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan reserved its judgment in February 2025.
Last week, the Court issued a comprehensive 97-page ruling rejecting Pernod Ricard’s appeal.
In its decision, the Supreme Court stressed that trademark protection is applicable to the registered mark as a whole and does not extend to an unregistered word within it.
The bench clarified that “Pride” is a generic term widely used in the liquor industry and cannot be claimed exclusively without distinct registration.
Additionally, the Court evaluated the packaging, bottle design, labeling, and colour schemes of both brands, concluding that they were sufficiently dissimilar to avert consumer confusion.
This is not the first instance of disappointment for Pernod Ricard in such matters. In September 2023, the Supreme Court denied relief in its infringement case against United Spirits’ Royal Challenge American Pride whisky.
Point of View
I assert that this Supreme Court ruling is a crucial step in upholding the integrity of intellectual property law in India. It emphasizes the need for clarity and fairness in trademark registrations, ensuring that no single entity can monopolize common terms essential for trade.
NationPress
19/08/2025
Frequently Asked Questions
What did the Supreme Court rule regarding Blenders Pride?
The Supreme Court ruled that Blenders Pride cannot claim exclusive rights over the term 'Pride' as it is a generic term, emphasizing the importance of fair use in commerce.
What was the nature of the dispute between Blenders Pride and London Pride?
The dispute arose when Pernod Ricard claimed that London Pride's use of 'Pride' infringed their trademark, leading to a legal battle over trademark rights.
What implications does this ruling have for trademark law in India?
This ruling reinforces the principle that trademark protection applies to registered marks as a whole, and generic terms remain available for fair use.
How did the courts previously rule on this matter?
The Indore Commercial Court and the Madhya Pradesh High Court both upheld that Blenders Pride and London Pride were distinct trademarks, dismissing the claims of infringement.
What does this mean for other companies in similar situations?
This ruling serves as a precedent, indicating that companies cannot extend their trademark rights over common terms without proper registration, promoting fair competition.
