Rhizome Distilleries P. Ltd & Durga Liquors India (P) Ltd v. Pernod Ricard S.A. France

FAO(OS) No.484/2008 & FAO(OS) 497/2008

The Delhi High Court addressed disputes over trademark infringement and passing off in the alcoholic beverage industry. The court examined claims by Pernod Ricard regarding its brands like Imperial Blue and Royal Stag against Rhizome Distilleries' Imperial Gold. While acknowledging the similarity of the word 'Imperial,' the court found that the widespread use of this term in the alcohol sector prevented a finding of exclusive right or secondary meaning for the plaintiff. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, setting aside the injunction but mandating specific changes to the defendant's trade dress and packaging.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court
Case Number
FAO(OS) No.484/2008 & FAO(OS) 497/2008
Judge(s)
Vikramajit Sen,V.K. Jain

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Delhi High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Rhizome Distilleries P. Ltd & Durga Liquors India (P) Ltd vs Pernod Ricard S.A. France is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patent(T)OP(PT)36/2023

M/s.Abellon Eco Equipments LimitedvsIndian Institute of Science

M/s.Abellon Eco Equipments Limited filed a petition seeking revocation of Patent No. 229283, alleging it was invalid and obtained through misrepresentation. The court noted that the document indicated the patent had not been renewed and its term had expired.

patentC.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 85/2024

Dabur India LimitedvsMs Usha Proprietor Of Rs Industries & Anr.

The Delhi High Court allowed Dabur India Limited's cancellation petition against a similar mark registered by Ms. Usha Proprietor Of Rs Industries. The court found that the impugned mark was confusingly and deceptively similar to Dabur's well-known trademark 'DABUR,' particularly given that both parties operate in the identical Class 3 goods (detergents, soaps, etc.). Citing prior use and established goodwill, the High Court directed the Trade Marks Registry to remove the infringing registration.

patentCS(COMM) 1139/2025

Pureplay Skin Sciences (India) Pvt. Ltd.vsMr. Wazahat Choudhary

In a trademark infringement suit concerning skincare products, the Delhi High Court issued several procedural orders favoring the Plaintiff, Pureplay Skin Sciences. The court granted leave to file additional documents and exempted the plaintiff from mandatory pre-litigation mediation due to the urgency of the matter. Crucially, the court also allowed the appointment of a Local Commissioner to inspect the defendant's premises for potential counterfeit goods, while simultaneously granting exemptions regarding advance service and discovery procedures.

patentIPDAID/42/2024

Bionorica SevsUnion Of India And Ors

Bionorica Se appealed against a rejection order passed by the Patent Controller, which cited non-compliance with Section 10(4)(b) of the Patents Act. The appellant argued that the rejection was perverse and lacked reasoned application of mind. The High Court set aside the impugned order, finding it cryptic and unreasoned, and remanded the matter back to the Controller for a fresh hearing on merits.

patentCS(COMM) 975/2025

Kei Industries LimitedvsM/S Sanayai Hardware & Ors.

The Delhi High Court issued a significant interim order in the trademark infringement suit filed by Kei Industries Limited against M/S Sanayai Hardware & Ors. The court granted exemptions from pre-institution mediation and advance service, recognizing the urgent need for protection. Crucially, the court allowed the Plaintiff to proceed with seeking an ad-interim injunction and appointed Local Commissioners to inspect the premises, allowing the Plaintiff to gather evidence of alleged trademark infringement related to 'KEI' and 'HOMECAB-FR'.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

Dealing with a patent challenge?

Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.

Talk to our patent team →

Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call