The Supreme Court of India has intervened in one of the liquor industry's most closely watched trademark disputes — the long-running battle between Allied Blenders and Distillers Pvt. Ltd., proprietors of the Officer's Choice mark, and John Distillers Ltd., proprietors of the Original Choice mark.
Background to the Dispute
The dispute centres on allegations of deceptive similarity between two registered trademarks operating in the same market segment. The core question is whether the marks — when viewed as a whole, including their visual appearance, phonetic sound, and commercial impression — are likely to cause confusion among consumers.
In 2013, the now-abolished Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) ruled that the marks were not deceptively similar and were unlikely to cause consumer confusion. The matter has since travelled through the appellate hierarchy, with both sides maintaining substantial commercial interests in the outcome.
The Supreme Court's Intervention
A Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi has now referred the matter to mediation, observing that the prolonged nature of the litigation and the significant commercial stakes involved made an alternative resolution pathway more appropriate than continued court proceedings.
The Bench's key observations include:
- The matter has been officially referred to Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) through mediation
- The Court emphasised that mediation offers a faster and more commercially sensitive pathway for resolving complex trademark conflicts of this nature
- Specific timelines have been set for the commencement of mediation and the submission of progress reports to the Court
- The parties are directed to engage with the mediation process constructively within the prescribed deadlines
Legal Significance
This development carries significance beyond the parties directly involved. The Supreme Court's referral reflects a broader judicial approach to intellectual property litigation — one that increasingly favours efficient, consensual resolution over protracted technical battles.
Trademark disputes in the consumer goods sector, particularly in the liquor and FMCG industries, often involve overlapping registrations, concurrent user claims, and decades of accumulated goodwill on both sides. These factors make them well-suited to mediation, where commercial arrangements — licensing, coexistence agreements, market delineation — can be structured in ways that a court order cannot always achieve.
What This Means for IP Practitioners and Brand Owners
The referral is consistent with the Supreme Court's wider push to reduce IP docket congestion and encourage settlement at the appellate stage. It also signals that parties to long-standing trademark disputes — particularly those involving registered marks on both sides — should give serious consideration to mediation as a strategic option, rather than treating ADR as a last resort.
For brand owners and IP counsel, this case serves as a useful reminder that even marks that have survived scrutiny at the Registry and Appellate Board level can remain subject to protracted litigation if the underlying commercial conflict is not resolved. A negotiated coexistence agreement, where commercially viable, often provides more durable protection than a final court order.
Key takeaway: The Supreme Court's referral of this dispute to mediation signals a growing judicial preference for ADR in complex, long-running IP matters — particularly where both parties hold valid registrations and the commercial stakes are high.