By Deepika Shrivastav and Tithi Aggarwal
Introduction:
The Delhi High Court recently granted interim relief in a trademark infringement and passing off dispute between Devans Modern Breweries Limited and Cartel Bros Private Limited concerning the use of the mark “Godfather” for alcoholic beverages. The Plaintiff, proprietor of the longstanding “Godfather” beer brand, challenged the Defendant’s promotion of “Glenwalk Godfather Whiskey,” alleging infringement of its trademark rights and goodwill. The case raises important questions regarding the protection of reputed marks, the application of the dominant feature doctrine, and the extent to which trademark rights extend across allied and cognate goods within the liquor industry. It also highlights the growing significance of interim injunctions in safeguarding brand identity in the age of digital advertising and social media marketing.
Background of the Dispute
The Plaintiff, Devans Modern Breweries, the maker of the well-known “Godfather” beer brand, approached the Delhi High Court alleging that Cartel Bros (Defendant) had unlawfully adopted the mark “Godfather” for its proposed whisky product titled “Glenwalk Godfather Whiskey.” According to the Plaintiff, the “Godfather” trademark has been in use since 1984 and enjoys extensive goodwill and market recognition in India.
The Plaintiff argued that the use of an identical mark for whisky products was likely to create consumer confusion and amounted to trademark infringement and passing off under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Plaintiff contended that alcoholic beverages, including beer and whisky, belong to closely related commercial categories, thereby increasing the likelihood of deceptive association among consumers.
Interim Order Passed by the Court
The matter was heard by Justice Tushar Rao Gedela on April 02, 2026. During the proceedings, counsel appearing for Cartel Bros (Defendant) informed the Court that though, the whisky product had already entered the distribution chain and reached retailers in Mumbai and Thane. However, the retailers had been instructed not to place the product for sale until the next date of hearing.
Recording the Defendant’s statement, the Delhi High Court directed that no fresh social media posts or promotional communications concerning “Glenwalk Godfather Whiskey” shall be released until further orders. The Court clarified that pre-existing advertisements or public references not originating from the Defendant or its authorised distribution network would not attract liability against the Defendant.
In the meantime, the Court heard arguments by both parties on May 22, 2026 and reserved its order. Further, their interim order dated April 02, 2026 continue till the next date of hearing.
Trademark Infringement and Passing Off: Legal Position
Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 provides that the unauthorized use of a registered trademark, or a mark bearing a close resemblance to it, may constitute infringement where such use is likely to create confusion, deception, or an impression of association among consumers. In the present matter, the Plaintiff has asserted causes of action for both trademark infringement and passing off, alleging that the Defendant’s adoption of the mark “Godfather” for whisky interferes with the reputation, goodwill, and distinctiveness that the Plaintiff has developed in respect of its beer products marketed under the same mark. The Plaintiff further maintains that the concurrent use of an identical mark for goods within the alcoholic beverages market is capable of causing consumers to mistakenly assume a commercial nexus between the parties’ products, thereby adversely affecting the exclusivity and value of the Plaintiff’s trademark.
Interpretation of the interim order
The interim order serves the importance of conducting thorough trademark clearance and due diligence before introducing new products into competitive consumer markets. The adoption of established or widely recognized marks, even for related product categories, may expose businesses to claims of infringement, injunctive relief, and potential financial and reputational harm.
The case further highlights the continued significance of the dominant feature doctrine in the adjudication of trade mark infringement and passing off disputes. Notably, despite the defendant incorporating its house mark into the product name, “Glenmark Godfather Whiskey,” the court’s analysis appears to have centered on the use of the mark “Godfather” for identical goods. This illustrates that the mere addition of a house mark, trade name, or distinguishing prefix does not necessarily mitigate the likelihood of infringement where the impugned element is identical or deceptively similar to a well-established prior mark. The dominant and distinctive component of the mark often remains the decisive factor in assessing consumer confusion and determining liability.
The case also serves as a cautionary example for celebrity-endorsed ventures and premium liquor brands. It highlights that the use of familiar or distinctive brand names, notwithstanding celebrity status of the brand owner, may expose them to legal challenges where similar trademarks are already protected, making careful brand selection and trademark compliance essential.
The case is also notable for extending interim restrictions beyond physical sales to include digital advertising and social media promotions. This reflects the increasing significance of online branding and digital marketing in modern trademark enforcement. Another notable aspect of the case is that the Court intervened before the full commercial launch, restraining fresh promotional activity and requiring postponement of sales.
Conclusion
The trademark dispute involving Glenwalk Godfather Whisky highlights the risks of adopting a mark that incorporates a distinctive and established brand element already associated with another business. From a trademark perspective, the case reiterates that the dominant portion of a mark, prior use, reputation, and the likelihood of consumer confusion across related product categories are critical factors in assessing infringement risk. Brand owners should conduct comprehensive trademark clearance searches, evaluate existing rights beyond identical goods, and obtain legal review before investing in branding, marketing, and product launches to avoid costly disputes, injunctions, and potential rebranding exercises.