Delhi High Court grants summary decree and permanent injunction against use of “Principal Choice” for whisky

A single-judge bench of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela heard an application under Order XIIIA, Rules 3 and 6(1)(a) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Section 151 CPC for summary judgment in a trademark suit concerning the plaintiff’s registered and well-known mark “Officer’s Choice”. The plaintiff sought a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the mark/label “Principal Choice” or any deceptively similar trade dress and ancillary reliefs including passing off, rendition of accounts and delivery up.

The Court allowed the plaintiff’s application for summary adjudication and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff, granting a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the impugned mark. The judge recorded that the defendants, though served, failed to file written statements despite condonation of delay and were proceeded ex parte; having examined the plaint documents, registrations and prior orders, the Court found that the plaintiff had established distinctiveness, secondary meaning and extensive goodwill in “Officer’s Choice” since 1988. The Court relied on procedural provisions permitting summary disposal in the absence of defence and on IPD/Original Side Rules enabling summary adjudication. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff has been able to establish a strong case for grant of decree of permanent injunction. As none of the defendants have traversed or controverted in accordance with law any of the facts and averments as also the documents accompanying the suit plaint demonstrating not only that the plaintiff has been in continuous user of the mark 'Officers Choice' since the year 1988 with almost 160 trademark registration of various marks and labels and their variants, coupled with the orders and judgments obtained by the plaintiff established by way of a number of judgments of this Court placed on record, the balance of convenience is completely tilted in favour of the plaintiff. As a consequence of the findings recorded above in respect of not only the reputation, goodwill or the arbitrariness in the subject mark, but also the distinctiveness and the secondary meaning garnered over the last many decades in the trademark 'Officers Choice', undoubtedly irreparable harm and injury would indeed be caused to the plaintiff in case the defendants are not restrained and injuncted from in any manner whatsoever using the impugned mark 'Principal Choice Whisky'. A decree of permanent injunction, in view of the aforesaid facts, would be in order."

Background: The plaintiff, Allied Blenders and Distillers Ltd., asserted ownership of the trademark “Officer’s Choice”, adopted in 1988 and acquired by assignment in 1991, with extensive registrations (about 160 marks/variants) and prior judicial recognition as a well-known mark in CS(COMM)1227/2016 (declared well-known in 2017). The suit alleged that defendants manufactured and marketed whisky under the mark “Principal Choice” / “Principal Choice Premium Whisky”, with packaging and trade dress deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s labels. The plaintiff produced trademark registrations, photographs of the impugned product, and a copy of the defendants’ trademark application (TM No. 5865065) filed on a “proposed to be used” basis; the Registry status as of 08.01.2026 indicated the application as “Abandoned”.

Procedurally, the Court had earlier granted an interim injunction on 11.08.2023 and later confirmed ad-interim relief on 12.12.2023. Although delay in filing written statements by some defendants had been condoned, the record showed no written statements on file and the defendants were ultimately proceeded ex parte (order dated 18.10.2024). The Court relied on Order XIIIA and the Delhi High Court IPD Rules (noting Rule 27: that the IPD “may pass summary judgment, without the requirement of filing a specific application seeking summary judgment”) and Original Side Rules to proceed without ex parte evidence where material on record sufficed. The Court cited a coordinate-bench authority to the effect that ex parte matters need not be kept pending where the available material justified relief. The plaintiff’s counsel voluntarily abandoned claims for damages and costs. The suit was decreed in terms of the plaint (prayer clauses 54(a), (b) and (c)), decree-sheet was directed to be drawn, and the suit along with pending applications was disposed of.

Case Details: Case No.: CS(COMM) 551/2023 Case Title: Allied Blenders and Distillers Limited v. Batra Breweries and Distilleries Private Limited & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Pravin Anand, Mr. Shrawan Chopra, Mr. Achyut Tewari, Ms. Krisha Baweja and Mr. Parth Malhotra, Advocates. For the Respondent(s): None

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela Judgment delivered on: 04.02.2026