Supreme Court Asks P&H HC To Expedite Radico Khaitan's Challenge To Injunction On 'The Spirit Of Kashmyr' Mark
The Supreme Court on Friday requested the Punjab and Haryana High Court to expedite the hearing of Radico Khaitan Ltd.'s challenge to an injunction restraining it from marketing vodka under the mark 'THE SPIRIT OF KASHMYR', amid a trademark dispute with Piccadily Agro Industries Ltd. over the competing marks 'CASHMIR' and 'CASHMERE'.
The Commercial Court at Karnal, Haryana on May 29, 2025 held in favour of Piccadily Agro Industries Ltd. at this stage, dismissing Radico Khaitan Ltd.'s applications seeking return and rejection of the plaint.
It observed that the allegations regarding the threatened launch of the disputed product in Haryana could sustain territorial jurisdiction and that a validly registered trademark could be enforced irrespective of use while its registration remained subsisting.
A Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana considered Radico Khaitan's request for an appropriate direction, noting that the matter had been repeatedly listed and adjourned before the Punjab & Haryana High Court and that the next hearing was scheduled for October 28, 2026.
The Supreme Court indicated that the parties could make an appropriate request before the High Court for an expedited hearing, particularly if the matter was unlikely to be taken up on the scheduled date.
“If the matter is not likely to be taken up in the heavy cause list, probably permission may be granted to counsel for the parties to make a mention before the High Court in the morning.”, the Court said.
Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Radico Khaitan, submitted that the injunction was preventing the company from marketing its product even though the competing bottles and labels were different.
Rohatgi argued that the company was facing commercial prejudice due to the continued injunction and the repeated adjournment of hearings before the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the dispute. He pointed out that the matter had already undergone an earlier round of litigation in which an injunction had been set aside on appeal and the issue remanded for reconsideration, only for an injunction to be imposed again.
The senior counsel also contended that the marks and the products were distinguishable, arguing that consumers would consider the overall appearance of the bottles and labels while making their purchases.
He referred to the use of “Cashmere” in connection with products such as wool to convey quality and argued that the word was not exclusively associated with Kashmir.
While refusing to enter into the merits of the case, the Supreme Court indicated that the parties could make an appropriate request before the High Court for an expedited hearing, particularly if the matter was unlikely to be taken up on the scheduled date.
The case arose from a trademark dispute between Piccadily Agro Industries Ltd. and Radico Khaitan Ltd. over the use of the competing marks 'CASHMIR' and 'CASHMERE' for vodka and 'THE SPIRIT OF KASHMYR'. Piccadily approached the Karnal Commercial Court alleging trademark infringement, passing off, unfair competition and misrepresentation, seeking to restrain Radico Khaitan from marketing its vodka under the disputed mark.
Piccadily claimed that it had conceived the 'CASHMERE' mark in 2015 and launched its 'CASHMIR' vodka in May 2025, whereas Radico Khaitan subsequently launched 'THE SPIRIT OF KASHMYR' in July 2025. It alleged that the phonetic and conceptual similarities between the marks could confuse consumers and harm its goodwill and business interests.
Radico Khaitan sought the return and rejection of the plaint, arguing that the Karnal court lacked territorial jurisdiction because it had not established sales of the disputed product in the area. It also contended that Piccadily had not used its registered 'CASHMERE' mark for several years and that the pending trademark rectification proceedings undermined its infringement claim.
The court held in favour of Piccadily Agro Industries Ltd. at this stage, dismissing Radico Khaitan Ltd.'s applications seeking return and rejection of the plaint. It observed that the allegations regarding the threatened launch of the disputed product in Haryana could sustain territorial jurisdiction and that a validly registered trademark could be enforced irrespective of use while its registration remained subsisting.