New Delhi, June 22, 2026: The Delhi High Court has granted an interim injunction in favour of Devans Modern Breweries Limited, restraining Cartel Bros Private Limited from manufacturing, marketing, advertising or selling whisky under the marks "GODFATHER" or "GODFATHER'S", holding that the impugned mark prima facie infringes Devans' long-standing trademark rights.
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela passed the order while hearing a trademark infringement suit filed by Devans Modern Breweries, the manufacturer of the well-known "GODFATHER" beer brand. The company asserted that it has been using the trademark "GODFATHER" since 1984 and possesses valid trademark registrations in both Class 32 (beer) and Class 33 (alcoholic beverages excluding beer).
The dispute arose after Cartel Bros announced the launch of a whisky product under the branding "THE GODFATHER" and later proposed a revised label incorporating the expression "THE GLENWALK GODFATHER'S BY SANJAY DUTT." Devans approached the Court alleging trademark infringement and passing off.
Plaintiff's Case
Devans argued that "GODFATHER" is an arbitrary and distinctive trademark which has acquired substantial goodwill over more than four decades of continuous use. The company contended that it enjoys registrations for the mark in both Classes 32 and 33 and has used the mark not only for beer but also for rum and whisky.
The company further submitted that the defendant's adoption of the mark was dishonest, particularly because trademark registry records showed that Cartel Bros had applied for registration of "THE GODFATHER" only in 2026 on a "proposed to be used" basis despite the existence of Devans' prior registrations.
Defendant's Defence
Cartel Bros argued that its mark was a composite mark and had to be viewed as a whole. It contended that the dominant identifier of its product was "THE GLENWALK" and not "GODFATHER." The company also relied upon the anti-dissection principle, arguing that one element of a composite mark cannot be isolated to establish infringement.
The defendant further maintained that beer and whisky are different products, sold to different consumer segments and falling under different trademark classes, making confusion unlikely.
Court's Findings
Rejecting the defendant's objections at the interim stage, the Court held that mere allegations of non-use do not deprive a registered proprietor of statutory rights flowing from trademark registration.
The Court observed that Devans continues to hold valid trademark registrations for "GODFATHER" in both Classes 32 and 33 and that the pending rectification proceedings initiated by Cartel Bros do not affect the enforceability of those registrations until they are decided.
The Court also found prima facie merit in Devans' contention that beer and whisky constitute allied and cognate goods. It noted that both products are alcoholic beverages, are sold through common trade channels, are available in the same retail outlets, and are governed by similar excise regulations.
Importantly, Justice Gedela held that despite the defendant's attempt to redesign its branding, the expression "GODFATHER" remained a prominent and essential feature of the impugned mark. The Court observed that an average consumer could associate the defendant's product with Devans' well-known "GODFATHER" brand, thereby creating a likelihood of confusion and unfair advantage.
The Court further noted that the defendant had knowledge of the plaintiff's registrations, as the Trade Marks Registry had specifically cited Devans' "GODFATHER" mark while examining the defendant's trademark applications.
Interim Relief Granted
Accordingly, the Court restrained Cartel Bros, its directors, agents and all persons acting on its behalf from manufacturing, bottling, marketing, selling, advertising or exporting whisky under the marks "GODFATHER", "GODFATHER'S" or any deceptively similar variation during the pendency of the suit.
The Court also directed the defendant to remove all online advertisements, promotional materials, social media posts and digital content containing the impugned marks and to initiate takedown requests wherever such content had been published.
Key Takeaway
The ruling reinforces the principle that a registered trademark proprietor can seek protection against infringement even where allegations of non-use are raised, unless the registration itself is cancelled through appropriate legal proceedings. The judgment also reiterates that products sold through common trade channels and sharing commercial characteristics may be treated as allied and cognate goods for the purposes of trademark protection.