Brief Legal News Write-Up
Devans Modern Breweries Limited v. Cartel Bros Private Limited & Anr.
Date of Judgment: 22.06.2026
Case No.: CS(COMM) 346/2026
Neutral Citation: Not available in the judgment
Court:
Hon'ble Judge:
The Court considered a trademark infringement and passing off dispute concerning the use of the mark “GODFATHER” in relation to alcoholic beverages. The case arose from allegations that the defendants proposed to launch whisky products using the mark “GODFATHER” and “GODFATHER’S”, despite the plaintiff being the registered proprietor of the long-standing “GODFATHER” trademark.
The principal question before the Court was whether the defendants’ use of “GODFATHER” as part of their whisky branding infringed the plaintiff’s registered trademark rights and whether beer and whisky could be treated as allied and cognate goods for the purposes of trademark protection.
After examining the material on record and the submissions of the parties, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that registration of a trademark confers enforceable statutory rights and that mere allegations of non-use do not deprive a registered proprietor of protection unless the registration is successfully rectified or cancelled. The Court further found that beer and whisky are allied and cognate goods and that the dominant and essential feature of the defendants’ proposed marks remained “GODFATHER”, which was deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s registered trademark.
The Court held that the defendants’ use of “GODFATHER” or “GODFATHER’S” was likely to cause association with the plaintiff and could unfairly exploit the goodwill and reputation acquired by the plaintiff over four decades.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the interim injunction application and restrained the defendants from manufacturing, marketing, selling, advertising, or using the marks “GODFATHER” or “GODFATHER’S” in relation to whisky during the pendency of the suit. The defendants were also directed to remove all online advertisements, listings, and promotional content bearing the impugned marks.
Disclaimer: Readers are advised not treat this as a substitute for legal advise as it is based on limited information and is intended solely for general informational purposes.
Introduction
Trademark disputes in the alcoholic beverage industry frequently raise complex questions regarding brand identity, consumer perception, reputation, and the extent of protection available to registered trademarks. The decision in Devans Modern Breweries Limited v. Cartel Bros Private Limited & Anr. is significant because it addresses whether a long-established trademark used primarily for beer can prevent another business from using the same mark for whisky.
The judgment examines the scope of trademark protection under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, particularly where competing products fall in different trademark classes but belong to the broader category of alcoholic beverages. The Court also considered important principles relating to non-use of trademarks, allied and cognate goods, likelihood of confusion, dilution of reputation, and the anti-dissection rule applicable to composite marks.
The ruling is particularly relevant for trademark owners, businesses launching new brands, intellectual property practitioners, and companies operating in industries where brand reputation constitutes a valuable commercial asset.
Factual and Procedural Background
Devans Modern Breweries Limited claimed to be one of India's leading manufacturers of alcoholic beverages and asserted long-standing use of the trademark “GODFATHER” since 1984 in relation to beer. The company possessed registrations for the mark in Class 32 for beer and also held registrations in Class 33 covering alcoholic beverages other than beer, including whisky and rum. The plaintiff contended that over several decades of commercial use, advertising, sales promotion, and market presence, the mark “GODFATHER” had acquired substantial goodwill and reputation.
According to the plaintiff, it discovered social media announcements indicating that Cartel Bros Private Limited intended to launch whisky products bearing the mark “GODFATHER”. Further investigation revealed that the defendants had filed trademark applications in Class 33 incorporating the word “GODFATHER”, including applications filed on a proposed-to-be-used basis in early 2026.
The plaintiff instituted a commercial suit for trademark infringement and passing off and simultaneously sought an interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
The defendants resisted the application, contending that they proposed to market whisky under a composite mark that prominently featured “THE GLENWALK” and “BY SANJAY DUTT”, with “GODFATHER’S” appearing only as one component of the overall branding. The defendants also argued that the plaintiff had not substantially used the “GODFATHER” mark in relation to whisky for several years and therefore should not be entitled to exclusive protection in that segment.
Dispute Before the Court
The Court was required to determine whether the plaintiff's trademark registrations remained enforceable despite allegations of limited use in relation to whisky.
The Court also had to decide whether beer and whisky could be regarded as allied and cognate goods even though they are classified separately under trademark law.
Another important question was whether the defendants’ proposed branding, including “THE GLENWALK GODFATHER’S BY SANJAY DUTT”, was sufficiently different from the plaintiff’s mark to avoid infringement and passing off.
The parties also disputed whether the anti-dissection rule prevented the Court from focusing on the word “GODFATHER” in isolation and whether consumers were likely to associate the defendants’ whisky with the plaintiff’s well-known alcoholic beverage brand.
Reasoning and Analysis of the Court
The Court began by examining the statutory framework governing registered trademarks. It referred to Sections 18, 28 and 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and emphasized that registration itself grants enforceable proprietary rights. The Court observed that a registered proprietor can sue for infringement notwithstanding allegations of non-use unless the registration is first removed or rectified in accordance with law. The Court relied upon Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. v. Coca Cola Co., (1995) 5 SCC 545, which recognized that statutory trademark rights are not dependent upon continuous use.
The defendants had argued that the plaintiff had not meaningfully used the “GODFATHER” mark for whisky after 2013. The Court, however, noted that the plaintiff had produced invoices and supporting material indicating use of the mark for whisky and rum. While the evidentiary value of those documents would ultimately be tested at trial, the Court found them sufficient at the interim stage to support a prima facie case of use.
A major issue concerned whether beer and whisky were allied and cognate goods. The Court observed that both products are alcoholic beverages, are sold through common trade channels, are available at the same retail outlets, and are regulated under similar excise frameworks. Although differences existed in price, alcohol content, storage requirements, and consumer preferences, those distinctions were not decisive. The Court held that the nature, purpose, and commercial relationship between the products justified treating them as allied and cognate goods.
While reaching this conclusion, the Court referred to several precedents including:
- FDC Limited v. Docsuggest Healthcare Services Pvt. Ltd., 2017 SCC OnLine Del 6381;
- Raj Kumar Sharma v. Sandeep Kumar, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 492;
- Radico Khaitan Ltd. v. Devans Modern Breweries Ltd., 2019 SCC OnLine Del 7483;
- Today Tea Ltd. v. Today Foods Pvt. Ltd., 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8345;
- Preetendra Singh Aulakh v. Green Light Foods Pvt. Ltd., MANU/DE/2853/2023.
The Court next considered the defendants’ reliance on the anti-dissection rule and the decision of the Supreme Court in Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd. v. Karamveer Singh Chhabra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1701. While acknowledging that composite marks must ordinarily be assessed as a whole, the Court held that the dominant and essential feature of the defendants’ branding remained the word “GODFATHER”. The addition of “THE GLENWALK” and “BY SANJAY DUTT” did not sufficiently dilute the prominence of that expression.
The Court also noted that the defendants had earlier sought registration of “THE GODFATHER” and had responded to objections raised by the Trade Marks Registry concerning the plaintiff’s existing registrations. This demonstrated awareness of the plaintiff’s rights and cast doubt on the bona fides of the adoption.
Ultimately, the Court concluded that the plaintiff’s mark had acquired substantial goodwill over four decades and that consumers were likely to associate the defendants’ whisky products with the plaintiff. The Court found that the ingredients of Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 relating to dilution and unfair advantage were prima facie satisfied.
Final Decision of the Court
The Court held that the plaintiff had established a strong prima facie case for grant of interim relief. It found that continued use of “GODFATHER” or “GODFATHER’S” by the defendants was likely to dilute the plaintiff’s trademark and cause consumer association with the plaintiff’s business.
The interim injunction application was allowed. The defendants, their officers, agents, successors, and all persons acting on their behalf were restrained from manufacturing, bottling, marketing, advertising, selling, exporting, or otherwise using the marks “GODFATHER” or “GODFATHER’S” in relation to whisky during the pendency of the suit.
The defendants were also directed to remove all online advertisements, listings, social media posts, and digital content bearing the impugned marks and to initiate take-down requests wherever such content had been published.
Point of Law Settled
The judgment reinforces the principle that a validly registered trademark remains enforceable unless rectified or cancelled in accordance with law, and allegations of non-use alone do not defeat infringement claims at the interim stage.
The decision further clarifies that beer and whisky may constitute allied and cognate goods despite being classified separately, where their nature, trade channels, consumer base, and commercial realities demonstrate a sufficient relationship.
The ruling also reiterates that the anti-dissection rule does not protect a composite mark where the dominant and essential feature is identical or deceptively similar to another party’s registered trademark. Courts may grant injunctive relief where such use is likely to cause confusion, dilution, or unfair exploitation of goodwill.
Case Details:
Title of the Case: Devans Modern Breweries Limited v. Cartel Bros Private Limited & Anr.
Date of Judgment/Order: 22.06.2026
Case Number: CS(COMM) 346/2026
Neutral Citation: Not available in the judgment
Name of Court: High Court of Delhi
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Justice Tushar Rao Gedela
Written By:
Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
Disclaimer: Images used herein do not reflect actual images used in Judgement and that the same are for illustrative purpose only. Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advice as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Suggested SEO Titles
- Delhi High Court Restrains Use of GODFATHER Mark for Whisky in Landmark Trademark Dispute
- GODFATHER Trademark Case: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction Against Whisky Brand
- Can Beer and Whisky Be Allied Goods? Delhi High Court Explains in GODFATHER Case
- Devans Modern Breweries Wins Interim Injunction in GODFATHER Trademark Litigation
- Delhi High Court on Trademark Dilution and Composite Marks: GODFATHER Judgment Analysed
- GODFATHER vs Glenwalk Godfather’s: Detailed Analysis of Delhi High Court Decision
- Registered Trademark Protection Despite Non-Use: Delhi High Court Clarifies Law
- Section 29 Trade Marks Act Explained Through GODFATHER Trademark Dispute
- Trademark Infringement in Alcohol Industry: Key Takeaways from Devans Modern Breweries Case
- Delhi High Court Reaffirms Protection of Well-Known Alcohol Brand Trademarks
Suggested SEO Tags
Trademark Infringement, Trade Marks Act 1999, GODFATHER Trademark, Devans Modern Breweries, Cartel Bros, Delhi High Court Trademark Case, Passing Off, Trademark Dilution, Section 29 Trade Marks Act, Registered Trademark Rights, Alcohol Beverage Trademark, Whisky Trademark Dispute, Beer Trademark Protection, Allied and Cognate Goods, Composite Trademark, Anti Dissection Rule, Intellectual Property Law India, Trademark Litigation India, Interim Injunction, Brand Protection, Trademark Enforcement, Commercial Courts India, Whisky Branding Dispute, Trademark Registration, Reputation and Goodwill, Section 28 Trade Marks Act, Trademark Remedies, AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman, IPAdjutor
Headnote of the Judgment
Devans Modern Breweries Limited Vs Cartel Bros Private Limited & Anr., High Court of Delhi, CS(COMM) 346/2026. The plaintiff sought an interim injunction restraining the defendants from using “GODFATHER” and “GODFATHER’S” for whisky products, alleging trademark infringement and passing off. The Court held that registration of a trademark confers enforceable statutory rights even where non-use is alleged unless the registration is validly rectified. It further held that beer and whisky are allied and cognate goods and that “GODFATHER” constituted the dominant feature of the defendants’ proposed branding. Finding a prima facie case of infringement, likelihood of confusion, dilution of goodwill, and unfair advantage, the Court allowed the interim injunction application and restrained the defendants from using the impugned marks pending disposal of the suit.
Infographic Thumbnail Prompt
Create a 3D ultra-realistic legal infographic in 14:9 aspect ratio depicting a high-stakes trademark dispute in the alcoholic beverage industry. Show two premium beverage brands in visual opposition, one representing a long-established brand with decades of goodwill and the other representing a newly launched whisky product. Include a large shield symbolizing trademark protection, a magnifying glass examining a disputed word mark, legal scales balancing “Brand Reputation” and “Market Entry”, trademark registration certificates, courtroom-inspired environment, whisky bottle silhouettes, beer bottle silhouettes, digital advertising screens being removed, and glowing legal text highlighting concepts such as “Trademark Infringement”, “Passing Off”, “Allied & Cognate Goods”, “Dominant Feature Test”, “Goodwill Protection”, and “Interim Injunction Granted”. Use sophisticated gold, silver and dark blue tones with realistic lighting, depth, reflections and premium business aesthetics. Emphasize brand protection, consumer confusion, and trademark enforcement through modern legal visuals. Use attached image as Image of lawyer in lawyers dress at left bottom corner which should cover 20 % of entire image area.
No comments:
Post a Comment