Supreme Court Explains Criteria For Grant Of Interim Injunctions In Trademark Infringement Cases

The Supreme Court recently laid down the criteria to be generally applied while deciding the cases of trademark infringement.

The Court said that although the Trade Marks Act, 1999 does not prescribe any rigid or exhaustive criteria for determining whether a mark is likely to deceive or cause confusion, each case must necessarily be decided on its own facts and circumstances.

However, the bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan lists out the multiple interrelated factors that become crucial to determine whether an interim injunction should be granted or not.

“the grant of an interim injunction in trademark matters requires the court to consider multiple interrelated factors: prima facie case, likelihood of confusion, relative merits of the parties' claims, balance of convenience, risk of irreparable harm, and the public interest. These considerations operate cumulatively, and the absence of any one of these may be sufficient to decline interim relief.”, the court said.

In this regard, the Court referred to the House of Lords case of American Cyanamid Co. v. Ethicon Ltd. (1975) AC 396 where the principles established continue to guide the Courts while determining interim injunction applications in trademark cases.

According to the Court, the following criteria are generally applied:

(i) Serious question to be tried / triable issue: The plaintiff must show a genuine and substantial question fit for trial. It is not necessary to establish a likelihood of success at this stage, but the claim must be more than frivolous, vexatious or speculative.

(ii) Likelihood of confusion / deception: Although a detailed analysis of merits is not warranted at the interlocutory stage, courts may assess the prima facie strength of the case and the probability of consumer confusion or deception. Where the likelihood of confusion is weak or speculative, interim relief may be declined at the threshold.

(iii) Balance of convenience: The court must weigh the inconvenience or harm that may result to either party from the grant or refusal of injunction. If the refusal would likely result in irreparable harm to the plaintiff's goodwill or mislead consumers, the balance of convenience may favor granting the injunction.

(iv) Irreparable harm: Where the use of the impugned mark by the defendant may lead to dilution of the plaintiff's brand identity, loss of consumer goodwill, or deception of the public – harms which are inherently difficult to quantify – the remedy of damages may be inadequate. In such cases, irreparable harm is presumed.

(v) Public interest: In matters involving public health, safety, or widely consumed goods, courts may consider whether the public interest warrants injunctive relief to prevent confusion or deception in the marketplace.

Background

The Court was deciding the appeal filed by Pernod Ricard challenging the orders of the Indore Commercial Court and the Madhya Pradesh High Court which rejected its interim injunction applications against the respondent. The appellant contended that the respondent used the similar name as "Blenders Pride" and used the similar styling of "Imperial Blue" for "London Pride".

Dismissing the Appellant's appeal, saying that the Respondent's Whisky named “LONDON PRIDE” do not bear any deceptive similarity with its Whisky brand named “BLENDERS PRIDE”, the Court discussed the aforesaid principles about the grant of trademark injunction.

Cause Title: PERNOD RICARD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ANOTHER VERSUS KARANVEER SINGH CHHABRA

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 803

Click here to read/download the judgment

Also From Judgment: Premium Whiskey Consumers Won't Confuse 'Blenders Pride' With 'London Pride' : Supreme Court Rejects Pernod Ricard's Plea