While the battle over the word ‘choice’ rages, some basic trademark principles are being forgotten. Even though the Supreme Court referred Allied Blenders and John Distillers to mediation, Aryan Agrawal, in this guest post, explains why it is not enough. He traces the trajectory of the dispute from the Madras High Court and shows how visual spectacles might have overridden core trademark principles. Aryan Agrawal is a final-year BA LLB (Hons.) student at Jindal Global Law School. He is also an alumnus of SpicyIP Academy and has attended the inaugural edition of the SpicyIP Summer School.
image from here
On Monday, 17 November 2025, the Supreme Court referred a matter to mediation, but, before that, during the hearing of the appeal against the Madras High Court’s Order dated 7 November 2025, in the case of Allied Blenders and Distillers v. John Distillers, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi produced both bottles and even “Tetra Pak” (a small aseptic carton package – fun sidenote for readers, Tetra Pak is the name of the company, not the product! Genericide risk??) versions of the Whiskeys. This led to a light-hearted exchange between the Bench and the Senior Counsels appearing in the dispute, with the bench raising concerns over the availability of liquor in small cartons, observing that this could lead to school children carrying the liquor to schools. This exchange sparked mixed social media reactions.
One point less discussed was how, and more importantly, why a side-by-side comparison was being carried out in a trademark case. In trademark disputes, what must be examined is the likelihood of an average consumer with imperfect recollection being confused, rather than a side-by-side comparison of the product’s packaging. The Supreme Court has upheld the validity of the test in Cadila Healthcare v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals.
In the rather recent judgment of Pernod Ricard India v. Registrar of Trademarks (the Blenders Pride case), the Supreme Court dealt with a case with similar facts. Instead of relying on this well-established precedent, the counsel sought to assist the Court by placing both bottles side by side. While visually striking, this approach was unusual in light of the settled principle that trademark comparison is not to be conducted through such direct visual juxtaposition, a point that many IP practitioners would have immediately noted. Similar side-by-side comparisons seem to have been carried out in the impugned order of the Madras High Court (see pages 58, 59 of the order), along with many other errors, which make the final order questionable. This post focuses on the Madras High Court’s impugned order, unpacking its core findings and exploring why a careful examination of its reasoning is essential for maintaining clarity in Indian trademark law.
Brief Factual Matrix
The dispute involved the whiskey brands Officer’s Choice (owned by Allied Blenders and Distillers) and Original Choice (marketed by John Distillers), which carry the suffix “Choice” and are distributed in overlapping markets. This dispute arose in a pair of cross-rectification proceedings, where both Allied Blenders and John Distillers sought removal of each other’s marks from the Register. Allied Blenders claimed that Original Choice was deceptively similar to its long-standing trademark and requested an injunction. The Madras High Court agreed with this argument, concluding that the overall structure, phonetic similarity, and commercial appearance of the two names created a possibility of confusion. The Madras High Court relied on both the common suffix and the probability that consumers would abbreviate both marks as ‘OC’, concluding that such abbreviation raised the risk of association. It consequently restrained John Distillers from using Original Choice, finding that the mark infringed on Officer’s Choice’s rights under the Trade Marks Act.
Revisiting the Pernod Ricard standard
In the Blenders Pride Judgment, the Supreme Court held that London Pride was not infringing the trademark by using the word ‘Pride’ in their name. They found the word to be a laudatory and common word used in the liquor industry. They also found that a trademark must be looked at its entirety and cannot be dissected while alleging infringement. Kartik Sharma’s post on this case emphasised this reaffirmation of holistic comparison and the prohibition on dissecting marks into isolated components.
The impugned order by the Madras High Court does discuss the previous judgment of Blenders Pride and also acknowledges the practice of Courts against dissecting a trademark, and even while doing so, not holding the use of common laudatory terms like ‘Pride’ in the brand name as trademark infringement. However, the Madras High Court placed significant importance on the use of the word ‘Choice’ as a factor which proved trademark infringement. If Pride cannot form the basis of confusion between two whisky marks, it is difficult to see why Choice should be elevated to that role without evidence of distinctiveness or secondary meaning. This is because common laudatory terms lack inherent distinctiveness and cannot, on their own, establish the source. Only if such a word has developed a strong secondary meaning, where customers link it with a single seller, can it maintain exclusivity. Without that demonstration, considering “Choice” as decisive risks conferring a monopoly over common language, which Pernod Ricard warns against.
Consumer Sophistication, Loyalty and the Pet Name Issue
A central feature behind the final decision in the Pernod Ricard case was that the consumers of IMFL, like Blenders Pride Whiskey, in that case, were well-informed and usually loyal to their brands. This is why the Supreme Court upheld the MP High Court’s earlier judgment applying the same logic, holding that consumers were not very likely to get confused between Blenders Pride and London Pride.
However, the Madras High Court held that consumers are likely to be confused between Officers Choice and Original Choice, in this case, considering that both of them are abbreviated as ‘OC’. This conclusion directly conflicts with the earlier Supreme Court judgment of Pernod Ricard and its reasoning of an average consumer of IMFL being a well-informed, brand-loyal consumer.
While it is true that some consumers do refer to Officers Choice Whiskey as ‘OC’, it is also true that it is rare for a person, whether consumer or retailer, to get confused between Officers Choice and Original Choice when someone asks for ‘OC’. Nicknames of liquor are usually used by consumers who are regular drinkers and are loyal to one brand. Nicknames of brands, whether for alcohol or otherwise, are typically used by consumers who are well-informed about the market, the brands in it, and are loyal to a specific brand that they might typically refer to by its nickname. The Madras High Court order did not consider this while finding confusion amongst consumers caused by the same abbreviation for the two brands.
The Dissection Problem and the Invention of Abbreviations
Trademark law, in general, much like the Indian position on it, instructs Courts to refrain from dissecting a trademark, whether word or device mark, into fragments. The analysis of infringement must stem from the whole mark and the likelihood of confusion caused by the whole mark. Kartik’s post on the Blenders Pride decision highlighted this as one of its most important doctrinal clarifications.
The Madras High Court does acknowledge this position of law, yet it continues to dissect the word mark. Furthermore, the Madras High Court goes on to consider the argument of common abbreviations, which is arguably a dissection of trademarks, to hold infringement. Courts cannot create hypothetical shorthand versions of marks and then base a finding of deceptive similarity on those imagined forms. Doing so reverses the logic of trademark analysis by prioritising speculation over the actual presentation of the mark. Trademark protection exists to prevent confusion arising from real marketplace use, not from speculative versions that consumers have never encountered, so grounding the analysis in conjectural abbreviations defeats the very function trademarks are meant to serve.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court has now heard the matter and has referred it to mediation. Although the practice is a sound one whilst hearing commercial disputes, a look at the long history of litigation between the parties on this dispute makes us wonder whether it is futile in this particular case. The main issues concern the application of trademark doctrines to determine the existence of an infringement claim, rather than negotiable business/trade terms. Even if the parties reach a middle path through this negotiation, the issue of inconsistency between the Supreme Court order in Pernod Ricard and this impugned judgment by the Madras High Court will remain unanswered.
The Madras High Court’s judgment acknowledges the Pernod Ricard criteria in theory but departs from them in reality by relying on side-by-side comparisons, dissected components, and speculative abbreviations. Mediation cannot address these doctrinal inconsistencies, which require authoritative clarification from the Supreme Court. To ensure consistency and predictability in trademark doctrine, the Supreme Court must ultimately reinforce those principles, whether in this case following mediation or in another.