‘Blenders Pride’ Vs ‘Royal Challenger American Pride’: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Pernod Ricard's Appeal For Interim Relief

Observing that the “similarities of a single word cannot be taken as an infringement or passing off,” the Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed Pernod Ricard India Private Limited's appeal against United Spirits Limited over alleged infringement of its trademark 'Blenders Pride'

Pernod had prayed for restraining United Spirits from infringing its trademark by manufacturing and selling goods under the trademark 'Royal Challenger American Pride'. A single bench had earlier dismissed its application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC

The division bench of Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice Alok Jain said, “any interim relief granted to the appellant will adversely affect the open market and might lead to monopolistic trade activity by the appellant.”

It was appellant's case that the Trademark "Blenders Pride" was adopted by its predecessor Seagrams Company Limited in 1973, for which it had obtained registration of the trademark "Blenders Pride" in Clause 33 of the Trade Marks Act in1994. It relates to and deals in respect of wines, spirits and liquors.

Thereafter, the predecessor of the appellant-Company launched a whiskey under the Trademark "Blenders Pride" in India, the counsel for appellant submitted.

The counsel submitted that in 2019, the respondent United Spirits Limited (USL) filed an application seeking registration of the Trademark "Challenger American Pride" for the goods falling under Classes 32 and 33. Thereafter, the respondent applied for the approval of the label with the competent authorities at Mohali in Punjab and the appellants, coming to know about it, immediately filed their objections.

The counsel for appellant submitted that Pernod also filed an application for registration of the Trademark "Pride" with the competent authorities, which is pending. During the interregnum, the respondents filed a fresh Trademark application for "American Pride" and mentioned that the same is being used since 2021, the court was told.

Pernod sought interim injunction, which was dismissed by the Commercial Court in 2022. The appellant argued that the respondent's Trademark was registered as "Royal Challenge American Pride" but the word "Royal Challenge" is not predominantly used, which is causing infringement in “Blender Pride” Trademark.

The respondent argued that the word “Pride” is a common English term which cannot be monopolized by the appellant.

On the question of deciding the injunction application, while referring to Apex Court’s verdict in Narendra Hirawat and Co. Vs. Sholay Media Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. and Amp, the court opined that “the appellant has not been able to prove any irreparable loss nor there is any balance of convenience and hence, the rigors of Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC are not met”.

Therefore, there is no question of grant of any injunction or any order in favour of the appellant, it opined.

The court said the entire thrust of the argument and the case built up by the appellant that there is infringement by the respondents is only on the basis of a common word ‘Pride’. “At the outset, in the absence of any registration of the word "Pride" independently and separately, disentitles the appellant to any stay qua the same,” it added.

The court further said that the act and conduct of the appellant also demonstrates that they themselves have foregone their right and have never objected to the use of the word "Pride" separately.

It is a well established principle of law that an 'opposition' to a trademark is distinct from applying for cancellation of trademark, the court said, adding that in the first scenario, the opposition can be raised only when an application for Trademark is pending with the authorities, in case, anybody has any objection to the grant of any Trademark, he can file an opposition.

Whereas, in the present case of cancellation, the deeming factor is that the Trademark already stands approved and registered and only, thereafter, a cancellation of a Trademark can be filed, it noted.

“In the present case, the appellants never filed any opposition, though the counsel for the appellant repeatedly tried to demonstrate that the application for cancellation of Trademark has to be treated as opposition to the Trademark,” the court said

The court observed that is too far stretched at the behest of the appellant that by use of word "Pride", there could be any misconception or dilution in the mind of the common man on the street, who is the ultimate consumer.

Case Title: Pernod Richard India Pvt Ltd v. United Spirit Ltd.

Appearances: Senior Advocate M.L. Sarin, with

Himmat Singh,Mamta Jha and Nakul Sharma, Advocates for the appellant.

Senior Advocate Chetan Mittal, with Senior Advocate Amit Jhanji, with Gurpreet S. Kahlon, Himanshu Gupta,Nikita Garg,Aarti Aggarwal,Uday Vir Rana and Sehej Sandhawalia, Advocates for the respondent.

Click Here To Read/Download Order