According to Defendants, in olden times, hunting was a favoured sport and when setting out to hunt, whisky was often carried. ‘Stags’ were among animals which were favourites. Both are an integral part of Scottish culture and cannot be separated.

‘Stag’ is an animal. Liquor, consumed in excess, may evoke animalistic tendencies. ‘Stags’ cannot, in any manner of speaking, be regarded as descriptive of alcoholic beverages. ‘Stag’ as a word hasn’t been used for an IMFL in a single other mark. Defendant has been unable to cite same. ROYAL STAG and INDIAN STAG, both used for IMFLs, are necessarily to be regarded as deceptively similar.

‘Amritdhara’ and ‘Lakshmandhara’, ‘Ruston’ and ‘Rustam’, ‘Golden Quilla’/’Lal Quilla’/’Neel Quilla’ and ‘Hara Quilla’, ‘Double Deer’ and ‘Golden Deer’ and ‘Haagen Dazs’ and ‘D’Daaz’ are all cases in which a common second part of rival marks led to Court returning a finding of deceptive similarity and, resultantly, infringement.

Beyond a bald plea of Defendants’ INDIAN STAG and Plaintiff’s ROYAL STAG being sold together at various outlets in Dubai, there is no substantial evidence to indicate awareness of Plaintiff much less of acquiescence to such use for a continuous period.

– Hon’ble Justice C. Hari Shankar of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, Pernod Ricard India Private Limited v. A.B. Sugars Limited, [CS(COMM) 371/2019] decided on 30.10.2023.