Criteria for Grant of Interim Injunction

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Rajesh Bindal has held that the Trade Marks Act, 1999 does not lay down rigid criteria to assess whether a mark is likely to deceive or cause confusion. Instead, each case must be decided on its own facts. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Pernod Ricard India Private Limited & Another v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra (2025). 

What was the Background of Pernod Ricard India Private Limited & Another v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra, (2025)? 

• Pernod Ricard India Private Limited, a major alcoholic beverage manufacturer, owns registered trademarks for popular whisky brands including "Blenders Pride" (registered 1994, in use since 1995), "Imperial Blue" (launched 1997), and "Seagram's" (registered 1945), with combined annual turnovers exceeding ₹4,400 crores.  
• In May 2019, Pernod Ricard discovered that a respondent company was marketing whisky in Madhya Pradesh under the brand name "London Pride" using packaging and design elements allegedly similar to their established brands. 
• The appellants filed a trademark infringement suit in the Commercial Court, Indore, claiming that "London Pride" was deceptively similar to "Blenders Pride" due to the shared word "Pride" and that the respondent's packaging imitated the colour scheme and trade dress of "Imperial Blue."  
• Additionally, they alleged that the respondent was using "Seagram's" embossed bottles to sell their "London Pride" whisky, constituting direct trademark infringement.  
• The Commercial Court rejected their interim injunction application on 26 November 2020, finding no deceptive similarity between the marks. 
• The Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld this decision on 3 November 2023, dismissing the appellants' appeal and concluding that the competing products were clearly distinguishable to consumers.  
• This led Pernod Ricard to approach the Supreme Court, challenging both lower court orders and seeking interim relief to prevent alleged trademark infringement, passing off, and unfair competition.  
• The case centres on fundamental questions of when trademark similarity creates consumer confusion and the appropriate standards for granting interim injunctions in intellectual property disputes involving composite marks and trade dress elements. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court observed that deceptive similarity in trademark law does not require exact imitation, emphasizing that the material consideration is the likelihood of confusion or association in consumers' minds arising from overall resemblance between competing marks, and courts must assess marks in their entirety rather than dissecting composite trademarks into isolated components.  
• The Court found that the marks 'Blenders Pride' and 'London Pride' are clearly not identical, noting that while the products are similar, the branding, packaging, and trade dress are materially distinct, with the term 'Pride' being publici juris and commonly used in the liquor industry.  
• The Court determined that the products in question are premium and ultra-premium whiskies targeted at a discerning consumer base who exercise greater care in purchase decisions, making the likelihood of confusion negligible given the distinct trade dress and packaging.  
• The Court criticised the appellants' legal strategy as a "hybrid and untenable pleading," observing that their attempt to combine elements from two distinct marks - 'Blenders Pride' and 'Imperial Blue' - to challenge 'London Pride' was legally unsustainable, as each mark must be assessed independently. 
• The Court noted that Section 17(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 grants exclusive rights only in respect of registered marks, while Section 17(2) excludes protection for common or non-distinctive elements unless they have acquired secondary meaning, and the appellants failed to demonstrate such distinctiveness.  
• The Court observed that the appellants' earlier unsuccessful challenge to United Spirits' use of 'Pride' in "Royal Challenger American Pride" established that they possessed no independent registration for the word 'Pride' but only for the composite mark 'Blenders Pride,' making their present attempt contrary to law and settled principles of equity. 
• The Court emphasised that in the liquor industry, where advertising is highly restricted, brand recognition rests predominantly on packaging and consumer loyalty, and unless imitation is deliberate and intended to mislead, the chance of confusion is minimal.  
• The Court concluded that the appellants failed to establish a prima facie case of deceptive similarity that could justify granting interim injunction, finding no meaningful similarity between the marks apart from the shared use of a common term. 

What are the Criteria Applied for Grant of Interim Injunction? 

• Serious Question to be Tried / Triable Issue: The plaintiff must demonstrate a genuine and substantial question fit for trial, establishing that the claim is more than frivolous, vexatious, or speculative, though it is not necessary to establish a likelihood of success at the interlocutory stage. 
• Likelihood of Confusion / Deception: Courts may assess the prima facie strength of the case and the probability of consumer confusion or deception at the interlocutory stage, and where the likelihood of confusion is weak or speculative, interim relief may be declined at the threshold despite not requiring a detailed analysis of merits. 
• Balance of Convenience: The court must weigh the inconvenience or harm that may result to either party from granting or refusing the injunction, with the balance favouring the plaintiff if refusal would likely result in irreparable harm to goodwill or mislead consumers in the marketplace. 
• Irreparable Harm: Where the defendant's use of the impugned mark may lead to dilution of the plaintiff's brand identity, loss of consumer goodwill, or public deception - harms which are inherently difficult to quantify - the remedy of damages may be inadequate and irreparable harm is presumed to exist. 
• Public Interest: In matters involving public health, safety, or widely consumed goods, courts may consider whether the public interest warrants injunctive relief to prevent confusion or deception in the marketplace, ensuring consumer protection remains paramount. 
• Cumulative Application: The grant of interim injunction in trademark matters requires courts to consider these multiple interrelated factors cumulatively, where prima facie case, likelihood of confusion, relative merits of parties' claims, balance of convenience, risk of irreparable harm, and public interest operate together. 
• Threshold for Refusal: The absence of any one of these essential criteria may be sufficient grounds to decline interim relief, as these considerations work in conjunction rather than independently to determine the appropriateness of granting injunctive relief. 
• Equitable Principles: The grant of injunction remains governed by equitable principles and is subject to the general framework applicable to proprietary rights, where courts retain discretion to mould relief according to the specific circumstances of each case.