Officer’s Choice’ v. ‘Original Choice’ Whiskey Trademark Dispute: Supreme Court Appoints Justice Nageswara Rao As Mediator

menu_bar
Live Law
home-iconTop StoriesNews UpdatesColumnsInterviewsForeign/InternationalRTIKnow the LawLaw SchoolsLaw FirmsJob UpdatesBook ReviewsEvents CornerVideosSponsoredContact UsAdvertise with UsRound UpsIBC NewsEnvironmental LawCartoonsTaxArbitrationConsumer Cases
Home > Top Stories > ‘Officer’s Choice’ v….
‘Officer’s Choice’ v. ‘Original Choice’ Whiskey Trademark Dispute: Supreme Court Appoints Justice Nageswara Rao As Mediator
By – Debby JainUpdate: 2025-11-17 11:38 GMT
Officers Choice v. Original Choice Whiskey Trademark Dispute: Supreme Court Appoints Justice Nageswara Rao As Mediator
facebook icontwitter iconlinkedin icontubmlr iconpinterest icon
whatsapp icon
Click the Play button to listen to article
Former Supreme Court judge Justice L Nageswara Rao is set to mediate a trademark dispute between India’s leading whiskey-selling brands John Distilleries and Allied Blenders.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi today requested the former judge to facilitate the process of amicable settlement between the companies on a priority basis.

The development came in John Distilleries’ plea against the Madras High Court order which ruled in favour of Allied Blenders, the maker of Officer’s Choice whisky, and ordered the removal of John Distilleries’ ‘Original Choice’ trademark from the register of trademarks. In this order of November 7, the High Court held that Original Choice was deceptively similar to Officer’s Choice and that its registration violated the Trade Marks Act, 1999. It also confirmed that Allied Blenders’ registration for Officer’s Choice remains valid.

The dispute arose as Allied Blenders filed a rectification petition before the trademark registry seeking removal of John Distilleries “Original Choice” trademark, claiming it was phonetically and visually similar to its mark and likely to confuse consumers. In turn, John Distilleries filed its own rectification plea against Allied Blenders’ “Officer’s Choice” mark, alleging that Allied Blenders had suppressed facts when seeking registration and that its 1990 registration application was filed before it had obtained ownership of the mark.

In 2013, the IPAB dismissed both petitions, ruling that the marks were not deceptively similar. Both companies then approached the Madras High Court.

Vide the impugned order, the High Court found that the IPAB (since defunct) erred in its 2013 order by comparing only the word elements of the rival marks instead of assessing the labels as a whole. Considering the long pendency of the case and the abolition of the IPAB, the Court decided to examine the marks itself instead of sending the matter back.

The High Court first examined whether Allied Blenders’ 1990 application for the trademark Officer’s Choice was valid. It found no element of fraud in Allied Blenders’ application and noted that the same was supported by proper board resolutions, an assignment agreement, and a subsequent deed of assignment with the original proprietor.

On the other hand, the Court rejected John Distilleries’ claim that its mark ‘Original Choice’ had co-existed peacefully with Officer’s Choice. It held that the IPAB had failed to exercise its powers under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act to properly assess the validity of the registration. Referring to Sections 9(1)(a) and 9(2)(a) of the Act, the Bench emphasized that a trademark which lacks distinctiveness or is likely to deceive the public cannot be allowed to remain on the register.

It was concluded that Original Choice lacked distinctiveness and was likely to deceive the public. Accordingly, the High Court ordered the rectification of the Original Choice trademark, set aside the IPAB’s earlier dismissal of Allied Blenders’ petition, and allowed Allied Blenders’ writ petition in full.

Appearance: Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi, Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Harish Salve, Dr AM Singhvi and Shyam Diwan

Case Title: M/S. JOHN DISTILLERIES PVT LIMITED Versus M/S. ALLIED BLENDERS AND DISTILLERS PVT LTD., SLP(C) No. 33238-33239/2025

Tags:
Supreme Court Justice Surya Kant Justice Joymala Bagchi Jusitce L Nageswara Rao
Similar News
Supreme Court Recalls ‘Vanashakti’ Judgment Which Barred Grant Of Post-Facto Environmental Clearances; Justice Bhuyan Dissents
2025-11-18 05:29 GMT
Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam Bail Pleas : Live Updates From Supreme Court Hearing | Delhi Riots UAPA Case
2025-11-18 04:48 GMT
Citing Delhi’s Smog, Justice Bhuyan’s Dissent Warns Against Allowing Post-Facto EC; Says Court Shouldn’t Backtrack
2025-11-18 09:47 GMT
BREAKING| Supreme Court Lays Down Revised Schedule For Various State Bar Council Elections; Forms Committees To Monitor
2025-11-18 08:21 GMT
‘Why Use Your Machinery For Political Battles?’ : Supreme Court Asks CBI In Jharkhand Assembly Appointments Case
2025-11-18 08:12 GMT
Supreme Court Issues Notice To Union On Plea Against Decision To Stop Patient Care Allowance To Disabled Hospital Staff
2025-11-18 07:51 GMT
Disclosure Of Candidates Shortlisted For CIC Appointments Might Be Counter-Productive : Supreme Court
2025-11-18 07:45 GMT
Railways Can’t Deny Compensation Saying Accident Victim Boarded Wrong Train : Supreme Court
2025-11-18 07:08 GMT
Supreme Court Seeks CBI, ED Response On Plea For Independent Probe Into Alleged Bank Fraud By Anil Dhirubai Ambani Group Companies
2025-11-18 06:23 GMT
‘Then We Should Monitor Handkerchief Use!’ : Supreme Court Dismisses Plea For Eco-Friendly Disposal Of Lawyers’ Bands
2025-11-18 06:15 GMT
Supreme Court Grants Bail To ED Officer In Bribery Case
2025-11-18 05:01 GMT
Kerala Moves Supreme Court Seeking Deferment Of Electoral Rolls’ SIR Till Local Body Elections
2025-11-18 03:09 GMT
Follow:
Copyright @2025Powered by Blink CMS