The Supreme Court on Monday strongly criticised the sale of whisky in tetra packs, saying the cartons look too similar to fruit juice boxes and do not carry proper health warnings. The Bench said that such packaging makes it easy for children to hide alcohol and even carry it to school.

The court questioned why states were allowing this kind of packing at all, saying the decisions appeared to be driven more by revenue needs than public health concerns.

“It looks like juice. Children can carry this to school. How are governments allowing this?” the Bench said, pointing out that the packs do not resemble liquor containers and lack the required warnings.

Why the packaging issue come up

The observations were made during a hearing on cross-petitions in a long-running trademark dispute between two major whisky brands, Officer’s Choice, owned by Allied Blenders and Distillers (ABD), and Original Choice, owned by John Distilleries. Together, these two brands have earned more than ₹60,000 crore in sales over the last 20 years.

How the dispute started

  • Officer’s Choice has been in use since 1988 and was later registered.

  • Original Choice entered the market in 1995–96 and obtained registration as well.

  • Both became extremely popular in the affordable whisky segment.

The fight centres on whether the two brands look too similar. The arguments include:

  • Both use the word “CHOICE”, which they had previously disclaimed

  • The labels use similar colours, badges, and layouts

  • Whether customers might get confused

  • And whether both brands’ 20+ years in the market count as honest coexistence

In 2013, the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) had dismissed both parties’ claims, ruling that the marks were not deceptively similar.

Madras High Court overturns IPAB

The Madras High Court disagreed with the IPAB and set aside its order. It allowed Original Choice’s request to remove Officer’s Choice’s registration while dismissing the latter’s plea.

The High Court said the IPAB made a mistake by looking only at the word “CHOICE” instead of the entire label, the colour scheme, design, and badge-style look. It said trademark similarity should be judged as a whole.

The court also rejected claims that Officer’s Choice had been fraudulently assigned, noting that ownership had passed legally through restructuring approved by the Bombay High Court.

The Supreme Court noted that the case has dragged on for more than 20 years, including 12 years in the High Court alone. The Bench suggested that instead of making the fight longer, both brands should think about changing parts of their packaging, such as colours, emblem positions, or how the word “CHOICE” is written.

Both companies told the court they were open to considering these changes.