As per case facts, the appellants, owners of the registered marks 'BLENDERS PRIDE' and 'IMPERIAL BLUE' whisky, sought an interim injunction against the respondent's mark 'LONDON PRIDE,' alleging trademark infringement ... and passing off based on deceptive similarity in name (common word 'PRIDE'), color scheme, and trade dress. The Commercial Court and High Court denied the injunction, finding the marks largely dissimilar when viewed as a whole and noting that 'PRIDE' is a generic, laudatory term common to the trade. The appellants appealed, arguing the lower courts erred by dissecting the mark, ignoring the overall similarity, and misapplying the average consumer test for high-end whisky. The question arose whether, applying the anti-dissection rule and the dominant feature test, the respondent's composite mark 'LONDON PRIDE' and its trade dress bore such a deceptive similarity to the appellants' registered marks as to warrant an interim injunction for infringement or passing off. Finally, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a prima facie case for an interim injunction was not established, as the competing marks (when viewed as a whole) and their dominant features, packaging, typography, and color schemes (despite sharing common elements like blue and gold) were sufficiently distinct, negating the likelihood of confusion in the mind of the average consumer, particularly one buying discerning products like premium whisky.