Factual Matrix 

In the case of Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd. v. United Spirits Ltd, It is said that the ‘BLENDERS PRIDE’ trade mark was adopted by the forerunner of Seagrams Company Ltd. in 1973 and also got trade mark registration No.in Clause 33 dated 25-3-1994 connected to wines, spirits, and liquors, under which whisky was released in India under the same name. According to the information provided, by 2019, the appellant company had annual sales of Rs. 1770 crores. But in 2019, the respondent submitted a request for the approval of the label as well as the registration of the trademark “ROYAL CHALLENGER AMERICAN PRIDE” for goods falling within Clauses 32 and 33. Therefore, on 6-11-2020, the appellants submitted their objections and requested the cancellation of the aforementioned registration no. To prevent the defendants from using a mark that is misleadingly identical to or similar to the plaintiff’s BLENDERS PRIDE trade mark, the appellants filed a lawsuit with the Commercial Court, asking for a permanent injunction against the ROYAL CHALLENGER trademark AMERICAN PRIDE. The appellant also submitted an application for temporary goodwill and reputation restraint along with it. Meanwhile, the relevant authorities approved the label “ROYAL CHALLENGE AMERICAN PRIDE.”

Punjab and Haryana Courts verdict 

The Punjab and Haryana High Court’s Divisional Bench of Justices Augustine George Masih and Alok Jain refused to grant any interim relief to the appellant company in an appeal against an order dated 17-1-2022 dismissing an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 against trademark infringement of “Blenders Pride” by using, manufacturing, and selling goods under the alleged trade mark “Royal Challenge American Pride,” as they could not establish any facts to support theirs.

The appellant corporation was unable to demonstrate any irreparable harm or a balance of convenience, according to the Court, which meant that Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC criteria were not satisfied. As a result, the Court denied the appellant company’s request for an injunction or any other ruling. In regards to passing off, the Court stated that “it is a stretch at the behest of the appellant to suggest that by using the word ‘Pride,’ there could be any misunderstanding or dilution in the mind of the common man on the street, who is the ultimate consumer, which would lead to any confusion.” The aforementioned condition of suffering irreparable loss or harm was not met, hence the appeal failed. The single word cannot be construed as an infringement or passing off because the two companies were competitors, and the court rejected this argument. Therefore, the Court dismissed the current appeal, stating that any temporary relief granted to the appellant would be detrimental to the open market and would even result in monopolistic trading practices.