The Core Essence
At its heart, this case was never about alcohol brands. It was about how far one can stretch trademark rights over a common word. The dispute clarified that generic or laudatory terms (like Pride) cannot be ring-fenced unless they have acquired distinctiveness.
The Key Principles
Whole Mark Comparison: Trademarks are judged in their entirety. You can’t snip out one word and claim monopoly.
Anti-Dissection Rule: Courts refuse to break marks into bits. They ask: What impression does the whole mark leave?
Dominant Feature Test: Protection rests on distinctive parts (like Blenders in Blenders Pride), not generic ones.
Average Consumer Test: The law cares about what a normal buyer with imperfect memory perceives — not a hyper-attentive lawyer.
Trade Dress Relevance: Colours, fonts, labels, and packaging matter just as much as words.
The Tests Applied
Imperfect Recollection Test: Would a consumer who doesn’t remember every detail confuse the two marks?
Secondary Meaning Test: Has the word (Pride) become so tied to one brand that people immediately think of it?
Likelihood of Confusion Test: Are consumers likely to believe both products come from the same source?
The Broader Takeaway
The case draws a fine line: you cannot monopolise the dictionary. To succeed in trademark battles, companies must rely on their distinctive elements, trade dress, and consistent branding — not just on one laudatory word.
