Supreme Court flags dangers of selling liquor in tetra packs

The Supreme Court on Monday sharply criticised the widespread sale of liquor in tetrapacks, observing that the carton packaging resembles fruit-juice boxes, carries no health warnings, and enables children to discreetly carry alcohol to schools [John Distilleries Vs Allied Blenders].

A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi made the remarks while hearing cross-petitions in the long-running trademark rectification battle between two of India’s highest-selling whisky brands—Officer’s Choice (Allied Blenders & Distillers) and Original Choice (John Distilleries).

“It looks like juice. Children can carry this to schools. How are governments allowing this?” the Bench remarked, adding that the packs do not look like liquor “at all” and lack statutory warnings.

The Court said that such sale was being permitted solely due to State revenue interests, with little assessment of public-health risks.

“Governments are interested in revenue. But how much health cost is wasted because of this?” the Court asked

The dispute traces back to the early 1990s, when Officer’s Choice - first used in 1988 - was acquired through assignment and later registered. Original Choice entered the market in 1995–96, also securing registration.

Both companies have since built enormous market shares, with combined sales exceeding ₹60,000 crore over two decades. Each claims to be among the top five whisky labels in India.

The core conflict concerns:

• Whether Original Choice is deceptively similar to Officer’s Choice;

• Whether the shared suffix “CHOICE”—disclaimed by both—is sufficient to cause confusion;

• Whether colours, badges, epaulettes and label layouts create a misleading “overall impression”;

• Whether 20+ years of coexistence amounts to acquiescence or honest concurrent use.

The IPAB in March 2013 dismissed both parties’ rectification petitions, holding that the marks were not deceptively similar and the rival labels did not cause confusion. Both companies filed writ petitions challenging this finding.

The Madras High Court set aside the 2013 IPAB order, allowed Original Choice’s rectification petition, and dismissed Officer’s Choice’s.

The High Court held that the IPAB had committed a fundamental error by examining only the word “CHOICE” while ignoring the competing label and device marks including colour schemes, officer-badge motifs and the overall trade dress.

The High Court emphasised that trademark similarity must be assessed holistically, not by dissecting components. It found the structural resemblance between “Officer’s Choice” and “Original Choice” sufficient to warrant rectification. It rejected arguments of fraudulent assignment raised against ABD, holding that the registration had matured through subsequent corporate restructuring approved by the Bombay High Court.

The matter then reached Supreme Court

The apex court today noted that the dispute had lasted over two decades, with 12 years spent before the High Court.

The Bench asked whether the matter could be resolved through modifications to branding rather than prolonged litigation.

Both sides agreed to explore changes in colour scheme, emblem placement and the stylisation of the word “CHOICE”.

The Court then referred the parties to retired Justice L Nageswara Rao for time-bound mediation.

It directed that preliminary discussions be held within a week and also sought a status update in two weeks.

When the counsel said on a lighter note that the litigation would end if tetrapacks were banned, the Bench responded by stating that the comment highlighted a regulatory vacuum. The Court indicated that the legality of liquor-in-cartons may warrant public-interest scrutiny independent of the trademark fight.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi and Shyam Divan appeared for John Distilleries

Senior Advocates Harish Salve and Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for Allied Blender.