Short Summary
Pernod Ricard appealed a Commercial Court order that rejected their application for temporary injunction against Karanveer Singh Chhabra, alleging trademark infringement of 'Blenders Pride' and 'Imperial Blue' by the defendant's use of 'London Pride'. The Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld the trial court's finding that no deceptive similarity existed between the marks. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, but the Trial Court was directed to proceed with the main suit on merits without being influenced by the appellate observations.
Detailed Summary
of the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning a request for extension of time filed by the Bosch defendants. The judge-rapporteur rejected Bosch's request, finding that a non-redacted version of Valeo's 15 June 2026 filing had been deposited in the CMS simultaneously with the redacted version, and that Bosch had failed to exercise due diligence in accessing it. The court ruled that the deadlines under R.29(d) RdP run from 15 June 2026.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in trademark matters before Madhya Pradesh High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Pernod Ricard India Private Limited vs Karanveer Singh Chhabra Trading As J.K. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Corn Products Refining Co.vsShangrila Food Products Ltd.
The Supreme Court of India addressed a trademark opposition case concerning the marks 'Glucovita' and 'Gluvita'. The court ultimately ruled in favor of the appellant, Corn Products Refining Co., finding that despite minor differences between the goods (powder vs. liquid glucose), the similarity of the marks combined with the established trade connection made confusion highly likely. This decision reinforced the principle that reputation among the general public, not just tradespeople, is a critical factor in trademark infringement analysis.
M/s.Digital Securities Pvt. Ltd.vsThe Registrar of Trademarks & M/s.Kwality Ice Creams
The Madras High Court addressed an appeal challenging an order that allowed the review of a trademark registration application previously treated as abandoned for want of prosecution. The court found that while the original abandonment was based on discretion, the subsequent procedural history and lack of substantive adjudication warranted intervention. Consequently, the Registrar was directed to proceed with the application after granting both the appellant and respondent a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
Pt Tech, LlcvsThe Controller Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks And Anr.
Pt Tech, Llc challenged the actions of The Controller of Patents, Designs and Trademarks in accepting a counter statement beyond the statutory period under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Delhi High Court addressed the petitioner's concerns regarding procedural violations related to evidence filing. Crucially, the court directed that the proceedings concerning opposition application no. 1307531 shall remain suspended until the next hearing date, providing temporary relief to the petitioner.
Pankaj Plastic Industries Private LimitedvsAnita Anu
This case involved a dispute over trademarks and copyright infringement concerning plastic products marketed under 'Pankaj Flex' by the plaintiff. The core legal issue before the Calcutta High Court was whether the plaintiff could revoke an earlier dispensation granted to bypass mandatory pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The court scrutinized the nine-month delay between the alleged date of knowledge (January 2024) and the filing of the suit (September 2024).
Leayan Global Private LimitedvsComfort X India & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued an order in the trademark dispute between Leayan Global Private Limited and Comfort X India & Anr., granting a request for adjournment. While arguments were pending regarding the distinctiveness of competing trademarks like 'COMFORT WALK,' the court allowed the petitioner to present additional documents despite their recent filing. The hearing was re-notified for December 17, 2024, contingent upon Leayan Global depositing costs.
Facing a trademark dispute?
Arctic's TM litigation team handles ~120 trademark matters per year across India, EU, and UK. From oppositions to infringement actions, we build winning arguments from precedent.
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.