"Principal Choice" Not An Honest Adoption, Clearly Infringing Plaintiff’s Well-Known Mark: Delhi High Court Grants Permanent Injunction In Favour Of "Officer’s Choice"

“The Entire Trade Dress Of Defendant’s Label Is Strikingly Similar” – In a decisive ruling that underscores the strength of trademark rights, especially when tied to decades of use and judicial recognition, the Delhi High Court decreed a permanent injunction in favour of Allied Blenders and Distillers Limited, restraining its own bottlers from selling whisky under the deceptively similar brand name “Principal Choice Whisky”.

Justice Tushar Rao Gedela allowing a summary judgment application under Order XIIIA CPC, while noting that the defendants had been served but failed to file their written statements despite condonation of delay. They were, accordingly, proceeded ex parte.

“‘Choice’ Is Not Just A Word; It Is The Plaintiff’s Identity”: Well-Known Mark Status, Reputation Since 1988, And 160 Registrations Tip Balance In Favour Of Plaintiff

Opening his judgment, Justice Gedela noted that the plaintiff’s mark “Officer’s Choice”, coined in 1988, had gained enormous goodwill, global sales dominance, and had been judicially declared a well-known trademark under Section 2(zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 in CS(COMM) 1227/2016 (Allied Blenders v. Surya Rao).

The Court remarked:

“By the long, uninterrupted and continuous use of the mark ‘Officer’s Choice’, at least since the year 1988, the said trademark has acquired distinctiveness and secondary meaning. The reputation and goodwill also is fairly well established.” [Para 22]

Further, the Court noted that the words “Officer’s Choice”, although consisting of common English terms, are arbitrary in relation to whisky, thus satisfying the threshold for distinctiveness.

The plaintiff had placed on record a table of 40 prior suits—including against marks such as “Special Choice”, “Collector’s Choice”, “Captain Choice”, “Emperor’s Choice”, “Our Choice”, and others—showing that they have consistently and successfully protected their rights.

Summary Judgment Under Order XIIIA CPC Allowed: No Written Statement, No Defence, No Purpose In Formal Evidence

The Court relied upon Order XIIIA Rules 3 and 6(1)(a) CPC, as well as Rules 14 and 27 of the Delhi High Court IPD Rules, 2022, to hold that formal evidence was not necessary when the defendants had failed to contest the case.

Referring to its own earlier decision in Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. v. Gauhati Town Club, the Court observed:

“The time of the Court should not be wasted in directing ex parte evidence to be recorded and which mostly is nothing but a repetition of the contents of the plaint.” [Para 19]

In this case, the defendants—who are bottlers of the plaintiff’s own products—failed to file or re-file their written statement even after delay was condoned. Hence, the Court observed:

“No purpose would be served in requiring the plaintiff to adduce any formal evidence... the plaintiff has also made out its case.” [Para 18]

“Principal Choice Whisky” Label Deceptively Similar: Defendant’s Abandoned Trademark Application Adds To Plaintiff’s Case

The crux of the infringement was the use of “Principal Choice Whisky”, a label that included the word “Choice” and whose trade dress bore striking resemblance to that of “Officer’s Choice”. The Court, after viewing side-by-side comparisons, observed:

“On a comparison of the two trademarks/labels, the deceptive similarity comes out to the fore. Not only is the word ‘CHOICE’ part of the plaintiff’s registered trademark but the entire trade dress... is strikingly similar... This cannot be said to be an honest adoption.” [Para 25]

Further bolstering the plaintiff’s case, the Court took on record a status report dated 08.01.2026 from the Trade Marks Registry, showing that the defendants’ own trademark application for “Principal Choice Whisky” (TM No. 5865065) had been abandoned:

“There is little reason for this Court to disbelieve the document handed over indicating the status as ‘Abandoned’... The only inference... is that the defendants are no more interested in pursuing their application.” [Para 26]

“Balance Of Convenience Lies Entirely With Plaintiff”: Relief Granted Without Damages As Plaintiff Chooses Restraint

Though the plaintiff had sought broader reliefs, including damages and costs, it chose restraint, with Mr. Pravin Anand, counsel for the plaintiff, stating that since the defendants were their own bottlers, the plaintiffs were willing to forego damages and costs, provided a permanent injunction was granted.

Accepting this submission, the Court decreed the suit:

“Accordingly, the suit is hereby decreed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants in terms of para 54(a), (b) and (c) of the prayer clause of the plaint.” [Para 30]

The operative reliefs include:

• Permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the impugned mark “Principal Choice Whisky”, or any deceptively similar mark.
• No damages or costs were awarded as the plaintiff voluntarily gave up those claims.
• Decree sheet directed to be drawn; all pending applications were also disposed of.

A Clear-Cut Trademark Win, Reinforcing Rule Of Law And IP Vigilance

This judgment is a strong endorsement of brand protection strategies, especially when companies build significant equity in their marks and act promptly against infringers. The Delhi High Court reaffirmed that well-known trademarks deserve the highest level of protection, especially when infringers are not just competitors but also related entities or licensees, such as bottlers.

The ruling also highlights how Order XIIIA CPC and IPD Rules can be leveraged to avoid delays in IP litigation, especially when defendants default after being granted ample opportunity.

Date of Decision: 04 February 2026