Supreme Court criticizes sale of alcohol in tetra packs; says "it is so easy to carry in schools"

The Supreme Court on Monday expressed concern over sale of alcohol in tetra packs, noting that their deceptive packaging could give school-going children easy access.

Tetra packs containing whiskey for sale were presented before a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi during the hearing of a trademark dispute.

"Should this even be permitted...it is so easy to carry in schools", Justice Kant said.

Supreme Court yesterday was at the centre of a long-standing trademark battle between two liquor giants – M/s. Allied Blenders and Distillers Pvt. Ltd., marketing its whiskey under the name ‘OFFICER’S CHOICE’ and M/s. John Distillers Ltd., marketing its whiskey under the name ‘ORIGINAL CHOICE’.

Both companies have registered their respective trademarks. Challenging the grant of a trademark to the other, both approached the erstwhile Intellectual Property Appellate Board (“IPAB”) seeking rectification of the mark used by the other. The IPAB, however, vide common order dated March 8, 2013, dismissed both the petitions observing that the two marks were not deceptively similar to each other and were not likely to confuse the public. The Madras High Court, by way of the Impugned order dated November 7, 2025, held that the mark ‘Original Choice’ was in continuous disturbance, and directed rectification thereof.

The matter came up before the Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi. To give the Court a comparative sense of the competing branding, the original bottles of both products, followed by their tetra pack versions were placed before court respectively. The sheet-anchor of John Distilleries case was the registration of its mark and its coexistence in the market for years, which has contributed to its own distinct identity.

Allied Blenders, on the other hand, succinctly clarified that the present case was one of registration and rectification, and not a passing-off or infringement action. Given the overlap in the brand architecture of both marks, especially the use of the word “Choice”, the coexistence of the two marks was inconceivable. Observing the nature of the contest and the commercial background, the Court urged that an amicable resolution through mediation may be a more effective route and has accordingly requested Justice L. Nageswara Rao, former Judge of the Supreme Court, to act as Mediator and bring a hiatus to the spirited dispute.

The Petitioner was represented by Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Senior Advocate and Mr. Shyam Divan, Senior Advocate. The Respondent was represented by Mr. Harish Salve, KC and Senior Advocate, Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Senior Advocate, Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Senior Advocate, Mr. Akhil Sibal,

Senior Advocate, Mr. Puneet Bali, Senior Advocate, along with a team of advocates from Anand & Anand comprising Mr. Pravin Anand, Mr. Shravan Chopra, Mr. K. Prem Chander, Mr. NC Vishal, Mr. Achyut Tewari, and Ms. Krisha Baweja; and a team of advocates from Karanjawala & Co. comprising Ms. Ruby Singh Ahuja, Ms. Aakriti Vohra, Mr. Tribhuvan Narain Singh, and Mr. Vishal Gehrana and Ms. Pragya Goel; and a team of advocates from Agarwal Law Associates comprising Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Mr. Rishi Agarwal, and Mr. Ankur Saigal.