Coming down heavily on the sale of liquor in tetra packs, the Supreme Court on Monday criticised the carton packaging used for certain whisky brands, saying the packs “look like fruit-juice boxes” and do not carry proper health warnings. The Bench said this kind of packaging makes it easy for children to take alcohol to school. The Court also questioned why states were permitting this at all, remarking that such decisions seemed driven mainly by revenue concerns, with little attention to public health.
“It looks like juice. Children can carry this to schools. How are governments allowing this?” the Bench observed. The packs do not look like liquor at all and lack statutory warnings,” it added.
Why the packaging issue now?
The Court’s remarks came while hearing cross-petitions in a long-running trademark dispute between two major whisky brands, Officer’s Choice (owned by Allied Blenders and Distillers, ABD) and Original Choice (owned by John Distilleries). Both are among India’s top-selling whiskies, with combined sales crossing ₹60,000 crore over the past 20 years.
How the dispute began
- Officer’s Choice was first used in 1988 and later formally registered.
- Original Choice entered the market in 1995–96, also obtaining registration.
- Both brands became massively popular in the affordable whisky segment.
The conflict centres on whether Original Choice is deceptively similar to Officer’s Choice, particularly in terms of:
- The shared word “CHOICE”, which both parties had disclaimed
- Use of similar colours, badges, and label layouts,
- Whether these similarities create a misleading overall impression on consumers,
- And whether their 20+ years of coexistence amounts to honest simultaneous use.
2013 (IPAB order): The Intellectual Property Appellate Board dismissed both sides’ petitions, holding that the two marks were not deceptively similar and were unlikely to confuse buyers.
Madras High Court steps in
The High Court disagreed and set aside the IPAB decision. It allowed Original Choice’s rectification plea and dismissed Officer’s Choice’s plea. The High Court said the IPAB made a serious error by focusing only on the word “CHOICE” and ignoring the labels as a whole such as colour scheme, design, and badge-style visuals. It said trademark similarity must be judged holistically, not by isolating one word.
It also rejected allegations of fraudulent assignment against Officer’s Choice, noting that the brand’s ownership had lawfully passed through corporate restructuring approved by the Bombay High Court.
Before the Supreme Court now
The Supreme Court noted that this dispute has dragged on for more than two decades, including 12 years in the High Court alone. The Bench suggested that instead of extending the legal battle further, the brands could consider modifying their packaging and design such as colour combinations, emblem placement, or the styling of the word “CHOICE” to avoid confusion.
Both companies agreed to explore such changes.
