Introduction:
In a significant development in the ongoing trademark battle within the liquor industry 🍾⚖️, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has stayed the operation of an order passed by the Commercial Court, Karnal, which had earlier restrained Radico Khaitan Ltd. from using the mark “Kashmyr” for its liquor products. The stay was granted by a Division Bench comprising Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor on October 9, 2025, while hearing an appeal filed by Radico Khaitan against the injunction obtained by Picadilly Agro Industries Ltd., the proprietor of the marks “Cashmir” and “Cashmere.” The Court observed that several triable issues needed detailed examination before any restrictive order could operate, particularly concerning jurisdiction, prior use, and similarity of the marks.
The case, titled Radico Khaitan Ltd. v. Picadilly Agro Industries Ltd., revolves around two competing trademarks—“Kashmyr” and “Cashmir”—used for premium alcoholic beverages. Picadilly Agro Industries Ltd., a well-known manufacturer of malt spirits and Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL), claimed that it had conceived the mark “Cashmere” in 2015 for launching a premium vodka brand and obtained registration for it. Subsequently, the company applied for registration of another mark, “Cashmir,” which it asserted had been used commercially since May 2025 after launching its vodka distilled from a unique wheat variety cultivated exclusively for the product. The company alleged that Radico Khaitan, a leading liquor manufacturer, had deliberately adopted the deceptively similar mark “Kashmyr” and even applied for label registration with the Uttar Pradesh Excise Department. Picadilly contended that the similarity between “Cashmir” and “Kashmyr,” both phonetically and visually, was likely to cause confusion among consumers, leading them to associate Radico’s product with its own established brand.
Arguments:
Arguing before the Commercial Court, Picadilly Agro sought an injunction against Radico Khaitan, claiming that the latter’s use of “Kashmyr” amounted to infringement, passing off, and dilution of its brand identity. The company’s counsel stressed that the marks “Cashmir” and “Kashmyr” were not only phonetically identical but also represented the same idea of luxury and exotic origin, as both referred to “Kashmir” — a name that evokes a sense of purity and quality. The plaintiff argued that Radico Khaitan had launched its vodka under the “Kashmyr” label in July 2025, barely two months after Picadilly’s own product “Cashmir” entered the market, suggesting deliberate imitation. Picadilly’s counsel contended that the similarity between the marks, combined with the overlapping consumer base in the premium vodka segment, created a high likelihood of confusion and market deception. It was further claimed that the defendant’s label design, color scheme, and bottle presentation closely resembled that of Picadilly’s product, amounting to an attempt to ride on its goodwill and mislead customers. The plaintiff emphasized that it had invested considerable time and resources in developing the “Cashmir” brand and that the injunction was essential to protect its commercial identity and consumer trust.
On the other hand, Radico Khaitan Ltd., represented by Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi along with a team of counsel including Mr. Akshay Bhan and Ms. V. Lakshmi Kumaran, challenged the injunction order on multiple grounds. First and foremost, the appellant questioned the territorial jurisdiction of the Commercial Court, Karnal. It argued that Radico neither manufactures nor sells its liquor products in Haryana and does not possess any excise license within the state. Hence, the company asserted that no part of the alleged cause of action had arisen within Haryana, making the injunction issued by the Karnal court wholly without jurisdiction. The company further contended that Picadilly’s reliance on the mark “Cashmir” was misplaced, as it was still pending registration at the time of the injunction. Therefore, Picadilly could not claim the statutory protection available to registered proprietors under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Additionally, Radico’s counsel maintained that the Commercial Court had failed to appreciate that phonetic similarity alone could not determine trademark infringement, especially when the marks are spelt differently, designed differently, and used in distinct commercial settings. The term “Kashmyr,” according to the appellant, was a unique stylized expression inspired by Indian heritage and did not imitate or copy any existing brand. The company asserted that “Kashmyr” was an independent creation and that there was no evidence of actual confusion among consumers. It was further argued that Picadilly Agro’s claim of prior use was unsubstantiated since its own product had been launched only in May 2025, barely two months before Radico introduced its label “Kashmyr.” In such a short span, the plaintiff could not establish market recognition or goodwill sufficient to claim exclusive rights over a mark based on phonetic resemblance.
Radico Khaitan also criticized the injunction as excessively harsh and premature. The appellant argued that the lower court should have explored less restrictive measures such as requiring distinct packaging or a disclaimer instead of imposing a blanket prohibition on the sale of its product. According to the defense, the Commercial Court’s order not only affected Radico’s business operations but also set a concerning precedent where minor phonetic similarities could lead to stifling competition in the industry. Radico therefore requested the High Court to stay the operation of the injunction and allow it to continue marketing its product “Kashmyr” pending a detailed examination of the facts and evidence.
Judgement:
Upon hearing both parties, the Division Bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor noted that the matter raised several substantial questions requiring careful consideration. The Court observed that there were triable issues relating to (1) whether any cause of action had genuinely arisen within the territorial limits of Haryana; (2) whether the two marks “Cashmir” and “Kashmyr,” along with their respective bottle designs, were deceptively or confusingly similar; and (3) whether Picadilly Agro could validly claim prior use and goodwill over its mark, especially given that the registration of “Cashmir” was still pending. The Bench also emphasized that it would be necessary to examine whether the Commercial Court could have safeguarded Picadilly’s commercial interests through less restrictive alternatives, rather than imposing an outright restraint on Radico’s business operations.
Significantly, the High Court observed that in intellectual property disputes—particularly those involving descriptive or suggestive marks—courts must strike a balance between protecting genuine trademark rights and preventing anti-competitive misuse of litigation. The Bench hinted that terms inspired by geographic or cultural references, such as “Kashmir,” may fall within a gray area of protectability, requiring a nuanced evaluation of distinctiveness and consumer perception. The judges further underlined that when two marks are yet to gain significant market recognition, the likelihood of confusion test must be applied carefully, considering not only phonetic similarity but also overall trade dress, packaging, marketing channels, and consumer sophistication.
Having examined the arguments, the High Court concluded that the Commercial Court’s injunction order warranted interference at this preliminary stage. The Bench therefore stayed the effect and operation of the injunction granted by the Karnal Commercial Court, holding that Radico Khaitan could continue to use and market its “Kashmyr” products until further orders. However, the Court clarified that this interim relief did not amount to a final determination of the merits of the dispute, which would be considered in due course based on evidence and legal submissions. The appeal has been listed for the next hearing on November 13, 2025.
This interim ruling of the Punjab and Haryana High Court underscores a broader principle in trademark jurisprudence—particularly in the liquor industry—that phonetic similarity alone is not decisive unless supported by proof of confusion, bad faith, or unfair advantage. The Court’s insistence on examining jurisdictional and factual aspects before upholding a restrictive order reaffirms the need for caution in granting injunctions that may have commercial repercussions. By staying the injunction, the Bench has ensured that both parties have an equal opportunity to establish their claims through a full trial, without prematurely stifling competition or business operations.
The judgment also reflects the evolving judicial approach toward balancing intellectual property rights and market freedom. As liquor companies increasingly turn toward sophisticated branding strategies inspired by cultural or regional symbolism, disputes like “Kashmyr” vs “Cashmir” highlight the growing tension between creativity and exclusivity. The High Court’s interim order signals that protection under trademark law cannot be claimed merely on the basis of phonetic resemblance; it must rest on clear evidence of prior use, distinctiveness, and consumer association. Until these questions are settled at trial, the stay ensures that commercial innovation is not unduly hampered while safeguarding the right to fair adjudication.