Sipping on Legalities: Decoding the 2023 Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment in the Blenders Pride vs. London Pride Trademark Saga

17th October, 2024 - 9:45 am Categories: Trademark Trademark Infringement 0 Comments

INTRODUCTION 

Brand management and marketing are ever-evolving industries, which means there are bound to be challenges in the use of trademark elements, which turns into litigation battles. One such case that draws the attention of many is the matter of Pernod Ricard India Private Limited and Ors. Vs. Karanveer Singh Chhabra, more commonly known as Blenders Pride vs. London Pride. The legal issues presented in this case are more than a straightforward case of trademark infringement, as the Indian whisky brand Blenders Pride claimed that the newly released brand known as London Pride whisky would create confusion in the mind of the customers as they are deceptively similar. In addition to explaining the particular judgement, it becomes imperative to analyse the rather restrictive approach of the courts in this particular instance, and the potential overlooking of issues.

BLOG 

One of the latest case in the domain of trademark law is that of Pernod Ricard India Private Limited and Ors. Or more commonly known as the Blenders Pride V. London Pride case. This dispute goes deeply into the issue of trademark infringement.

Pernod Ricard India Private Limited is one of the major companies in India that is responsible for  manufacturing and supplying whisky. It has a wide array of products like Blenders Pride and Imperial Blue. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant, Karanveer Singh Chhabra, had used their trademark on the sale of a whisky that was marketed under the name London Pride. Pernod Ricard filed the preliminary injunction to restrain sales on the grounds that due to the similarity of the marks, there exists the potential for confusion amongst the consumers. However, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dismissed the application for an ad interim injunction. It held that there was not enough similarity between the two trademarks and was of the opinion that Chhabra’s use of “London Pride” was unlikely to cause deception. The Court, while deciding trademark disputes, repeatedly refer to developed principles of earlier precedential decisions.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment reflects a view of principles that is somewhat restrictive, meriting careful scrutiny. The court insisted on an examination that was individualistic regarding the logos to be inspected, thereby bypassing the whole picture presented before consumers’ eyes. Upon a closer look, there exist certain factors that the Hon’ble court has given slight relevance to while deciding the case.

Trademark law is mainly meant to prevent consumer confusion. A proper comparison must consider both the distinct elements, such as a logo, color, and font used but also how the marks look and sound in combination. The approach adopted by the court to dissect logos is at risk of leading to misrepresentative conclusions about the perceptions of consumers. For example, although it could be a case of two brands that are clearly different upon close inspection, the consumer who does not exercise great scrutiny may be confused between the two. The casual observer would probably form their impression based on overall aesthetics and general associations with brands rather than analyzing every component meticulously.

On closer inspection of the packaging of London Pride whisky, it is found that it is similar to the petitioner’s brands, Blenders Pride and Imperial Blue. The scheming and coloring in the logos of London Pride are strikingly similar to those of the petitioner which hints at the design being deliberate and meant to cause confusion. Also, the shape and design of the label on top of the London Pride bottle is quite the same as that of Imperial Blue creating a similar visual that can easily deceive people.

The color palette employed in the logo of the London Pride is intentional and reflects the colors that are found in both Blenders Pride and Imperial Blue. These are not only artistic considerations, but are rather technical aspects with the purpose of order in the intended audience’s mind. Colors can affect one’s perception and feelings towards a particular brand, thus forming part of a brand’s identity. Therefore, by using the same colors, London Pride could be, quite innocently, causing its customers to perceive the product in the same context as the present cutural phenomena of Blenders Pride and Imperial Blue. On the other hand, The labeling by which a London Pride storage compartment is covered also needs appreciation. The design and the arrangement bear a resemblance to those of Imperial Blue which can result in consumers being confused especially for those who do not take the time to look at each product in detail before buying. Most likely because in a situation where there are many products that consumers are assessed, most of the time they use the images and not the fine details. Hence, they would also assume that it is a product of Pernod Ricard because of the way its packaging looks, making it hard to distinguish if it’s part of the other offerings.

The resemblance goes beyond aesthetics and has implications on basic trademark principles which are meant to prevent consumer confusion. It is damaging to the market when organizations present themselves in a manner which can be considered deceptive in regard to their sources. Different brands particularly in high end markets such as whisky, are expected to be distinct by the consumers dealing with them.

The use of “pride” in both trademarks raises additional issues pertaining to generic words and infringement of trademarks. Generally speaking, the term “pride” is not capable of being trademarked thus not infringing any prior registered marks on its own. However, the question of the propriety of adopting “pride” by rival companies within the same market boundaries is contentious. Research indicates that the focus of the business of creating clone brands is largely on the invention of goods that are able to achieve functional relations with the preeminent brands. It is also contented that the word  has become customary and synonymous with the brand itself during the established practices of the trade.

Competitors using imitation tactics can blur the line between authentic and imitation brands, thereby threatening brand equity created over time by the market leaders. Through visual similarities, consumers can end up buying imitation products while believing that they are purchasing originals, and this raises crucial questions about brand integrity and consumer awareness.

The first aspect that stands out is that the Court of Appeal is emphasizing consumer sophistication. While elaborating on the same, the court cited the example of  J.R. Kapoor Vs. Microlx India (1994)² , Cadila Health Care vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals (2001)³ and Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma vs. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories (1964)⁴  in which it was held that ‘the class of purchasers who are likely to buy the goods bearing the marks they require, their education, intelligence and the degree of care they are likely to exercise in purchasing and/or using the goods would be a relevant factor for deciding the question of deceptive similarity’. Since both products are premium whiskies, their target market will also be able to understand the difference. Understandably so, but it flies in the face of variations in consumer behavior and familiarity with various whisky brands. Not all customers are enlightened to the brands of whisky. Occasional customers or nascent-entry people in upper categories are likely to confuse alike-sounding or styled brands. This segment cannot be ignored as the likelihood of confusion of this segment has a fantastic impact on brand integrity and consumer protection.

Research has also shown that impulse purchases driven by low-priced merchandise make a huge contribution toward consumer confusion from too much availability of choice in retail environments. Special types of consumers such as older consumers or impulsive buyers will prove very sensitive to confusion. When personal relevance is increased in high-involvement situations, consumers start to connect much more meaningfully with brand names and decide if they actually share a common origin. On the other hand, low-involvement situations mean that consumers will treat similar-sounding brand names as unrelated in origin even without deep analysis of the shared meanings.⁶

Actual confusion is otherwise the most palpable form of evidence by consumers in courts where trade mark cases are concerned. These empirical presentations of consumer confusion can, however, often tend to miss more intangible elements of brand recognition and perceptions by consumers.

CONCLUSION 

The case Blenders Pride vs. London Pride, therefore, represents an important scrutiny of complexities inherent to trademark law. Though on strict interpretation of trademark principles the judgment passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court is legally sound, yet the case points to a greater need for a more nuanced approach that incorporates wider consumer behavior and dynamics of the market as well. Trademark infringement cases require careful scrutiny regarding how consumers perceive brands and potential confusion within competitive marketplaces. A holistic evaluation—considering visual, phonetic, and contextual factors—is essential for protecting both brand integrity and consumer interests. As trademark branding evolves constantly, courts have to be ever vigilant for subtle facts and law that might result in consumer confusion such that trademark law stays true to its underlying purpose-prevention of marketplace deception. Protection for established brands will have to be balanced with fostering competition in trademark jurisprudence; cases such as Blenders Pride vs. London Pride are, therefore, critical to the future legal interpretations and the ongoing development in Indian trademark law.

Author: Tanisha Chellani , in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to chhavi@khuranaandkhurana.com or at  Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney.

REFERENCES –

1. MANU/MP/3182/2023
2. MANU/SC/1166/1994
3. MANU/SC/0199/2001
4. MANU/SC/0197/1964
5. Balabanis, G., & Craven, S. (1997). Consumer confusion from own brand lookalikes: An exploratory investigation. Journal of Marketing Management, 13(4), 299–313.
6. https://www.indiatoday.in/law/story/whisky-bottles-case-supreme-court-blenders-pride-imperial-blue-london-pride-pernod-ricard-jk-enterprises-2492419-2024-01-23
7. Howard, D. J., Kerin, R. A., & Gengler, C. (2000). The Effects of Brand Name Similarity on Brand Source Confusion: Implications for Trademark Infringement. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 19(2), 250–264.

7.FOXMAN, E. R., MUEHLING, D. D., & BERGER, P. W. (1990). An Investigation of Factors Contributing to Consumer Brand Confusion. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 24(1), 170–189.