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 trademark 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

trademark2006(33)PTC629(DEL)

Glaxosmithkline PharmaceuticalsvsTheodar Laboratories Private Limited

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals, granting a permanent injunction against Theodar Laboratories Private Limited for infringing on its trademarked product's packaging. The court found that the defendant's carton was a 'slavish imitation' of the plaintiff's distinctive color scheme and layout, which would mislead innocent consumers purchasing animal supplements. This judgment reinforces the protection afforded to trade dress in the pharmaceutical/feed supplement sector.

trademarkC.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 199/2023

Shri Ram Autotech Private LimitedvsGarima Singh & Anr.

In a trademark dispute before the Delhi High Court, the court addressed an application filed by the respondent seeking condonation of a 21-day delay. The petitioner, Shri Ram Autotech Private Limited, expressed no objection to the delay being excused. Consequently, the court allowed the application, allowing the respondent's reply to be taken on record and granting time for filing a rejoinder.

trademarkC.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 156/2023 & C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 157/2023

M/S. Vaibhav EquipmentsvsVandhana Jain & Anr.

M/S. Vaibhav Equipments initiated trademark opposition proceedings against Vandhana Jain & Anr., challenging the registration of identical marks in classes 9 and 35. The petitioner asserts prior use of their trademarks, including 'VESUMO' and 'SUMO', since 1997 for welding tools, arguing that the subsequent adoption by the respondent is in bad faith. The court has issued notice to the respondents and scheduled the matter for further pleadings and hearing.

trademarkCS(COMM) 736/2024

The Motor And General Finance LimitedvsA.S. Enterprises, Partnership Firm

The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of The Motor And General Finance Limited against A.S. Enterprises, Partnership Firm regarding trademark infringement. The court found that the defendant's use of 'MGF INDIA' was phonetically and deceptively similar to the plaintiff's established trademark 'MGF'. Given the prima facie case for infringement and the risk of irreparable loss, the court restrained the defendant from using the infringing marks until the final hearing.

trademarkCS(COMM) 879/2025

Calvin Klein Trademark TrustvsAshok Kumar (Unkown)

The Delhi High Court granted several interim reliefs in favor of Calvin Klein Trademark Trust against Ashok Kumar. The court allowed the plaintiff to file additional documents and exempted them from pre-institution mediation due to the urgent nature of the matter. Crucially, the court ordered a local commission to be conducted to inspect and inventory all infringing products bearing deceptively similar marks, thereby strengthening the plaintiff's case for permanent injunction.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our TM 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 trademark matter?

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

Get a Strategy Call