The Supreme Court of India has appointed former judge Justice L. Nageswara Rao to mediate a high-profile trademark dispute between “Original Choice” and “Officer’s Choice.” Learn about the case background, legal developments, and key takeaways under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Introduction
Trademark disputes among major brands often capture public attention due to their commercial and legal implications.
A recent example is the long-standing dispute between two leading whiskey brands—“Original Choice” by John Distilleries and “Officer’s Choice” by Allied Blenders and Distillers.
In November 2025, the Supreme Court of India appointed Justice L. Nageswara Rao, a former judge of the apex court, to mediate the dispute and facilitate an amicable resolution between the parties.
Background of the Case
The dispute originated from a complaint filed by Allied Blenders seeking removal of John Distilleries’ trademark “Original Choice”.
It was argued that the mark was deceptively similar to its own well-known brand, “Officer’s Choice”, potentially causing confusion among consumers and violating provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
In response, John Distilleries filed a rectification petition challenging the validity of the “Officer’s Choice” trademark, alleging that Allied Blenders had suppressed material facts at the time of registration in 1990.
Timeline of Legal Proceedings
- 2013: The Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) dismissed both parties’ petitions, holding that the trademarks were not deceptively similar.
- Post-2013: Both companies approached the Madras High Court challenging the IPAB’s decision.
- November 7, 2025: The High Court set aside the IPAB’s ruling and decided in favour of Allied Blenders, ordering the removal of “Original Choice” from the trademark register.
- The Court held that the mark was deceptively similar, lacked distinctiveness, and was likely to mislead consumers.
- It also affirmed the validity of Allied Blenders’ trademark while observing that the IPAB had erred in its earlier assessment.
Supreme Court’s Latest Intervention
Challenging the Madras High Court’s verdict, John Distilleries approached the Supreme Court.
A Bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi appointed Justice L. Nageswara Rao as a mediator to explore the possibility of a swift and amicable settlement.
The case involves senior legal counsels including Mukul Rohatgi, Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Harish Salve, Dr. AM Singhvi, and Shyam Divan.
This move reflects the Court’s inclination to encourage mediation in commercial disputes, particularly where prolonged litigation may not be the most effective resolution mechanism.
Key Legal Takeaways
- A trademark may be refused or removed if it is deceptive or lacks distinctiveness under Sections 9(1)(a) and 9(2)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
- Courts follow a holistic approach while assessing similarity, examining the overall impression, trade dress, and phonetic resemblance of marks.
- With the abolition of the IPAB, High Courts now function as the primary adjudicating authorities in intellectual property disputes.
Conclusion
The ongoing mediation in this case may set an important precedent for resolving trademark disputes in India, particularly in industries with intense brand competition such as alcoholic beverages.
Whether the matter concludes through settlement or proceeds to a final judicial determination, it underscores the importance of distinctiveness in branding and the strict enforcement of trademark laws.
The case also highlights the growing role of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms like mediation in reducing litigation and achieving efficient outcomes.
