Supreme Court Lays Down Key Principles for Granting Interim Injunctions in Trademark Infringement Cases
In Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra, the Supreme Court of India clarified the principles governing interim injunctions in trademark infringement cases.
The Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan emphasized that while the Trade Marks Act, 1999 does not prescribe rigid criteria to assess likelihood of deception or confusion, courts must evaluate each case based on its unique facts and circumstances. Drawing reference from the House of Lords ruling in American Cyanamid Co. v. Ethicon Ltd. (1975 AC 396), the Court reiterated that injunctions depend on multiple interrelated factors.
Key Factors for Grant of Interim Injunction in Trademark Cases:
Serious triable issue – The plaintiff must show a genuine question fit for trial, beyond frivolous or speculative claims.
Likelihood of confusion/deception – Courts may assess whether the impugned mark can mislead consumers, even without detailed merits at the interlocutory stage.
Balance of convenience – Harm to the plaintiff’s goodwill and consumer interest is weighed against inconvenience to the defendant.
Irreparable harm – Injunction is warranted where brand dilution, loss of goodwill, or consumer deception cannot be adequately compensated by damages.
Public interest – Especially in consumer goods, courts consider whether an injunction prevents confusion or protects public health and safety.
These factors operate cumulatively; absence of even one may justify refusal of injunction.
Case Background
Pernod Ricard sought an interim injunction against the respondent’s whisky brand “London Pride”, alleging deceptive similarity with its marks “Blenders Pride” and “Imperial Blue”. Both the Indore Commercial Court and the Madhya Pradesh High Court had rejected the plea.
Upholding the rejection, the Supreme Court ruled that “London Pride” did not bear deceptive similarity with “Blenders Pride”, and hence no injunction was warranted.
This ruling provides crucial guidance for trademark litigation in India, reinforcing that prima facie case, consumer confusion, balance of convenience, irreparable harm, and public interest must all be considered before granting interim injunctions.