Trademark law — Recent Cases (2024–2026)

1. Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd. v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra (2025) 2025 INSC 981, Supreme Court of India

Hook

‘Blenders Pride’ vs ‘London Pride’ — same last word, same shelf, same whisky aisle. Confusing? The Supreme Court said not necessarily.

Meet the Parties

• Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd. — owner of the premium whisky brand ‘Blenders Pride’.
• Karanveer Singh Chhabra — manufacturer selling whisky under the name ‘London Pride’.

What Happened? (Facts)

Pernod Ricard alleged that ‘London Pride’ infringed its registered ‘Blenders Pride’ mark and amounted to passing off, since both used the common word ‘Pride’ for the same category of product — whisky.

The defendants argued that ‘Pride’ was a common, laudatory, publici juris (commonly used) word that no single trader could monopolise.

Lower courts had earlier granted interim relief before the matter reached the Supreme Court.

The Big Legal Question

• Can a laudatory, commonly used word shared between two trademarks be monopolised by one party?
• Should courts compare marks as a whole (anti-dissection) or focus on the dominant, source-identifying feature?

What Did the Court Decide?

The Supreme Court held that “BLENDERS PRIDE” and “LONDON PRIDE” were not deceptively similar when viewed as complete trademarks, applying the anti-dissection rule.

The Court found no likelihood of consumer confusion, reasoning that premium whisky buyers are generally well-informed and brand-conscious.

Why Did the Court Think So? (Reasoning)

The Court emphasised the dominant feature test, holding that the true source-identifying elements were the words “BLENDERS” and “LONDON” — not the shared, common word “PRIDE”.

It reasoned that trademark law protects consumers from deception without creating unjustified monopolies over common expressions, and that the word “Pride” could not be exclusively owned unless it had acquired distinct secondary meaning.

The Golden Rule (Ratio Decidendi)

A common, laudatory word shared between two composite trademarks cannot be monopolised by one trader; courts must apply the anti-dissection rule and identify the dominant, distinctive feature of each mark rather than isolating shared common terms.

Why This Case Matters Today

This 2025 ruling is now the leading modern authority on the doctrine of publici juris (common-to-trade words) and reinforces that brand protection must not choke fair competition.

It directly affects how liquor, FMCG, and consumer brands frame their trademark disputes when a common descriptive word is involved.

Case Timeline

• 2019 — Pernod Ricard becomes aware of the respondent’s ‘LONDON PRIDE’ whisky and its allegedly similar packaging; files Civil Suit No. 3 of 2020 before the Commercial Court, Indore, seeking an interim injunction.
• 3 November 2023 — The Madhya Pradesh High Court (Indore Bench) dismisses Pernod Ricard’s Miscellaneous Appeal against the Commercial Court’s refusal of interim injunction.
• 14 August 2025 — Supreme Court finally decides the appeal in Pernod Ricard v. Chhabra, applying anti-dissection and publici juris doctrines, and dismisses Pernod Ricard’s appeal.

Compare It With Another Landmark Case

Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satya Deo Gupta (1963) — the original source of the anti-dissection rule this 2025 judgment relies upon, showing continuity in doctrine across six decades.

Relevant Articles/Sections

Trade Marks Act, 1999, Sections 2(1)(h) and 29; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order XXXIX Rules 1–2.

Exam Memory Hack

PRIDE isn’t private property — only the word attached to it (Blenders/London) tells you whose bottle it is.

Possible Exam Questions

• Short: What is the doctrine of publici juris in trademark law?
• Long: Analyse the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Pernod Ricard v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra (2025) on the dominant feature test.
• Problem-based: Two competing brands share a common laudatory word in their trademarks. Discuss the likely outcome of an infringement claim.

Key Legal Terms

Anti-Dissection Rule • Dominant Feature Test • Publici Juris • Laudatory Words • Composite Marks

TARAJU Takeaway

A shared word doesn’t mean a shared identity — courts look at the full picture, not just the part everyone else is also using.

2. Burger King Corporation v. Anahita Irani & Ors. (Pune ‘Burger King’ Dispute) (2024–2025) Pune District Court (2024); Bombay HC (2024); SC Stay Order, 7 March 2025

Hook

The world’s second-biggest burger chain lost to a small Pune eatery that had been using the name ‘Burger King’ since before the global chain even entered India. Prior use beat global fame.

Meet the Parties

• Burger King Corporation — the American fast-food giant, plaintiff seeking to stop local use of its name.
• The local Pune restaurant operators — using the name ‘Burger King’ for their eatery since 1991–92, well before the global brand’s Indian entry.

What Happened? (Facts)

A Pune trial court dismissed Burger King Corporation’s infringement suit in July 2024, finding that the local outlet had prior local use.

The trial court noted the local restaurant had used ‘BURGER KING’ since 1991–1992, whereas the global chain’s Indian trademark registration for restaurant services dated only to 2006, with actual Indian operations beginning in 2014.

The Bombay High Court granted an interim restraint against the local outlet in December 2024 while hearing the appeal, but the Supreme Court stayed that restraint in March 2025, restoring status quo for the local business.

The Big Legal Question

• Does global brand reputation automatically override a local trader’s genuine prior use of an identical name in India?
• What does a local business need to prove to claim the ‘prior user’ shield under trademark law?

What Did the Court Decide?

Courts at multiple levels recognised that continuous, honest local use predating the global brand’s Indian entry could defeat an infringement claim by even a world-famous mark.

The Supreme Court’s March 2025 stay preserved the local trader’s position pending final appeal.

Why Did the Court Think So? (Reasoning)

The reasoning rested on the prior-user shield under Section 34 of the Trade Marks Act and the territoriality principle from the Toyota Prius case — foreign fame does not automatically win in India unless reputation here is proven before the defendant’s adoption of the mark.

The courts distinguished global brand recognition from proven local reputation, holding that trademark rights are fundamentally territorial in nature.

The Golden Rule (Ratio Decidendi)

A local trader’s continuous, honest, and prior use of a mark in a specific market can shield it from an infringement claim brought by even a globally famous brand, if the global brand cannot prove Indian reputation predating that local use.

Why This Case Matters Today

This ongoing dispute is a major real-world test of the territoriality doctrine against a global fast-food giant, closely watched by IP practitioners.

It shows Indian courts continuing to protect small, genuine local businesses against multinational trademark claims where prior use is proven.

Case Timeline

• 1991–1992 — Local Pune eatery begins using ‘Burger King’ name.
• 2006 — Global Burger King Corporation obtains Indian trademark registration for restaurant services.
• 2014 — Global chain begins actual restaurant operations in India.
• 16 July 2024 — Pune trial court dismisses Burger King’s suit, crediting prior local use.
• 2 December 2024 — Bombay High Court grants interim restraint on appeal.
• 7 March 2025 — Supreme Court stays the High Court’s restraint; appeal remains pending before the High Court.

Compare It With Another Landmark Case

Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha v. Prius Auto Industries (2018) — the territoriality principle at the heart of this case, where Toyota’s global ‘Prius’ fame failed to defeat a local company’s earlier Indian registration and use.

Relevant Articles/Sections

Trade Marks Act, 1999, Section 34 (prior user’s rights); territoriality doctrine under common law passing-off principles.

Exam Memory Hack

Local first, global later — if you were there first and never stopped trading, even a giant brand can’t just walk in and take your name.

Possible Exam Questions

• Short: What is the ‘prior user’ defence under Section 34 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999?
• Long: Discuss how the territoriality principle protected the local trader in the Burger King (Pune) trademark dispute.
• Problem-based: A global brand enters India decades after a local trader has used an identical name. Can the global brand claim infringement? Discuss with reference to relevant case law.

Key Legal Terms

Prior User Rights • Territoriality Doctrine • Section 34 • Interim Injunction • Trans-Border Reputation (contrast)

TARAJU Takeaway

Global fame isn’t a passport to override local roots — Indian law protects the trader who was genuinely there first.

3. Delhi High Court — ‘GODFATHER’ Trademark Dispute (Dominant Feature Test & Cognate Goods) (2026) Delhi High Court, 2026 (Devans Modern Breweries Ltd. v. Cartel Bros Pvt. Ltd.)

Hook

A beer brand called ‘GODFATHER’ fought off a rival’s attempt to launch a whisky under ‘THE GODFATHER — BY SANJAY DUTT’. Adding a celebrity name and an article wasn’t enough to escape a claim of copying.

Meet the Parties

• The original ‘GODFATHER’ beer brand owner (Devans Modern Breweries Ltd.) — holding decades-old goodwill in the mark since 1984, with registrations extended to whisky and rum since 2005.
• Defendants marketing a competing whisky as ‘THE GODFATHER’ with the added tagline ‘BY SANJAY DUTT’ (Cartel Bros Pvt. Ltd.).

What Happened? (Facts)

The Court examined whether the addition of descriptive or celebrity-linked words like ‘THE GLENWALK’ and ‘BY SANJAY DUTT’ meaningfully distinguished the defendants’ mark from the plaintiff’s ‘GODFATHER’.

It was shown that the defendants had earlier sought registration of ‘THE GODFATHER’ and had responded to objections raised by the Trade Marks Registry concerning the plaintiff’s existing registrations — demonstrating clear awareness of the plaintiff’s prior rights.

The plaintiff argued this awareness, combined with adoption of a near-identical mark, showed bad faith rather than coincidence. A key contested issue was also whether beer (the plaintiff’s core product) and whisky (the defendants’ proposed product) are ‘allied and cognate goods’ for the purposes of infringement.

The Big Legal Question

• Does adding extra words (a celebrity name, a descriptive tagline) to a well-known mark escape a claim of infringement?
• What role does proven awareness of a rival’s mark play in establishing bad faith adoption?

What Did the Court Decide?

The Court held that the dominant and essential feature of the defendants’ branding remained the word ‘GODFATHER’, and that the additions did not sufficiently dilute its prominence.

It concluded that the plaintiff’s mark had acquired substantial goodwill over four decades and that consumers were likely to associate the defendants’ whisky with the plaintiff’s established brand.

Why Did the Court Think So? (Reasoning)

While acknowledging that composite marks are ordinarily assessed as a whole under the anti-dissection rule, the Court held that the dominant feature — ‘GODFATHER’ — retained its distinctiveness despite the added words.

The Court treated the defendants’ prior knowledge of the plaintiff’s registration (evident from their own trademark filing history) as strong evidence undermining any claim of honest, independent adoption.

The Golden Rule (Ratio Decidendi)

Adding descriptive or celebrity-linked words to a mark does not defeat an infringement claim if the dominant, source-identifying feature remains the same as the senior mark; demonstrated prior knowledge of the senior mark strengthens a finding of bad faith adoption.

Why This Case Matters Today

This case is significant for India’s growing celebrity-endorsement branding trend, showing that attaching a famous name to a product doesn’t immunise it from trademark liability.

It reinforces that decades of goodwill deserve strong protection against dilution, even from marks with added distinguishing elements.

Case Timeline

• Plaintiff’s ‘GODFATHER’ beer brand builds goodwill over roughly four decades from 1984.
• January–February 2026 — Defendants file for registration of ‘THE GODFATHER’ on a proposed-to-be-used basis; Registry raises objections citing plaintiff’s existing marks.
• Defendants proceed to market whisky as ‘THE GODFATHER — BY SANJAY DUTT’.
• 22 June 2026 — Delhi High Court grants an ad-interim injunction in favour of the original ‘GODFATHER’ brand owner, restraining the rival’s use of the mark for whisky pending final trial.

Compare It With Another Landmark Case

Cadila Health Care v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals (2001) — like Cadila, this case shows courts applying a holistic, multi-factor approach while still zeroing in on the truly distinctive part of a composite mark.

Relevant Articles/Sections

Trade Marks Act, 1999, Sections 29 (infringement) and 30 (non-infringing use); passing off under common law.

Exam Memory Hack

A celebrity’s name is a spotlight, not a disguise — if the core word is copied, the spotlight doesn’t hide it.

Possible Exam Questions

• Short: What is ‘bad faith adoption’ in trademark law?
• Long: Discuss how the Delhi High Court applied the anti-dissection and dominant feature tests in the GODFATHER trademark dispute.
• Problem-based: A company adds a celebrity’s name to a rival’s well-known mark before launching a competing product. Analyse potential trademark liability.

Key Legal Terms

Bad Faith Adoption • Dominant Feature Test • Trademark Dilution • Composite Marks • Goodwill • Cognate/Allied Goods

TARAJU Takeaway

You can’t launder a copied mark by dressing it up with a celebrity name — courts look past the packaging to the heart of the brand.