Archive · 19 Aug 2025
Supreme Court: Blenders Pride Can't Own 'Pride' in Trademark Case
Imagine two drinks, one called Blenders Pride and the other London Pride.
The company that makes Blenders Pride thought London Pride was copying them because both names use the word 'Pride.'
They went to court, but the Supreme Court said the word 'Pride' is like a common word everyone can use.
The court explained that even though Blenders Pride is a trademark, the company can't own the word 'Pride' by itself.
The judges said the two drinks look different, so people won't get confused.
This means London Pride can keep its name.
Supreme Court ruled that Blenders Pride cannot have exclusive rights to the word 'Pride'.
The case involved a trademark dispute between Pernod Ricard (Blenders Pride) and JK Enterprises (London Pride).
Pernod Ricard argued that London Pride infringed on its trademark by using the word 'Pride'.
The Supreme Court dismissed Pernod Ricard's appeal, upholding the lower court's decision.
The Court stated that 'Pride' is a generic term and not subject to exclusive appropriation without separate registration.
- Who
- The Supreme Court ruled in favor of JK Enterprises (London Pride) against Pernod Ricard (Blenders Pride).
- What
- The Supreme Court clarified that the word 'Pride' cannot be monopolized in a trademark dispute.
- When
- The Supreme Court delivered the judgment last week.
- Where
- The Supreme Court of India.
- Why
- The Supreme Court ruled to prevent powerful corporations from monopolizing generic words within trademarks.
Pernod Ricard's Stance
London Pride's Defense
Trademark Infringement Claim
Pernod Ricard's Stance
Argued London Pride infringed its trademark by using 'Pride.'
London Pride's Defense
The Court upheld the decision that 'Pride' is generic.
- Plaintiff
- Pernod Ricard (Blenders Pride)
- Defendant
- JK Enterprises (London Pride)
- Case
- Trademark Infringement
- Court Decision
- Dismissed Pernod Ricard's appeal
- Judgment Length
- 97 pages
- Key Issue
- Monopoly over the word 'Pride'
- Advocate
- Ayush Jain (for the ruling)