In an ex parte ad interim injunction order, the Delhi High Court has held that the Defendants’ adoption of the dominant feature “THUNDER” with a mere substitution of the numeral “15000” was insufficient to distinguish the rival marks, and that the Plaintiff had made out a prima facie case of infringement and passing off under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
The Court applied the settled principle that a registered proprietor of a trademark has a statutory right to use the mark exclusively and to restrain third parties from infringing it. Where a party adopts a mark that is deceptively similar to a registered mark for identical goods, with full knowledge of the prior statutory and common law rights of the registered proprietor, such adoption constitutes a deliberate attempt to come as close as possible to the registered mark and amounts to infringement under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, as well as passing off.
The Court further applied the position that the use of the dominant and essential feature of a registered mark, with only a minor substitution that is insufficient to distinguish the rival marks, particularly where the trade channels and consumer base are common, results in an inevitable likelihood of confusion amongst the public.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Jyoti Singh observed that InBrew had made out a prima facie case for grant of ex parte ad interim injunction against the Defendants. The Court noted that InBrew is the registered proprietor of the trademark THUNDERBOLT and its formative marks in Class 32, with the earliest registration dating back to 1984, whereas the Defendants had no registration in respect of the impugned mark THUNDER 15000 in India.
The Court found that the impugned mark was deceptively similar to InBrew’s mark and was being used for similar goods, with the Defendants having adopted the entirety of “THUNDER”, which constitutes the prominent and dominant part of THUNDERBOLT, and that the addition of the numeral “15000” was not sufficient to distinguish the rival marks.
Given that the trade channels and consumer base were common, the Court held that there was every likelihood of confusion amongst members of the public. The Court further observed that the Defendants had attempted to come as close as possible to InBrew’s mark to misrepresent to the public that their goods had some association with the Plaintiff and to encash upon its formidable goodwill and reputation, which was causing irreparable damage to InBrew’s reputation. The Court accordingly found that the Defendants were prima facie infringing InBrew’s registered trademarks and passing off their goods as those of the Plaintiff.
Briefly, InBrew Beverages Private Limited, a leading Indian alcoholic beverages company with a legacy spanning over five decades and a pan-India presence across more than 20 States backed by a team of over 300 professionals, filed a suit before the Delhi High Court against Kinjore Brewery Private Limited and another party. InBrew manufactures, markets and distributes a comprehensive range of alcoholic beverages including beer, whisky, rum, brandy, vodka and gin, with a portfolio of over 43 spirits brands such as Vin Green Label, White Mischief, Honey Bee, Thunderbolt and Romanov Vodka. The trademark THUNDERBOLT was originally adopted by M/s Mount Shivalik Breweries Limited in 1984, later acquired by Molson Coors India Private Limited, and thereafter validly acquired by InBrew, making it the registered proprietor of the mark in Class 32 for beer, with the earliest registration dating back to 1984.
The case arose when InBrew discovered in the first week of May 2026 that Defendant No. 2 was importing and selling beer under the impugned mark THUNDER 15000 in Jharkhand, having promoted the same since December 2025 through an Instagram post. Defendant No. 1, a Bhutan-based brewery, was manufacturing the products under the impugned mark and had obtained a Brand Registration Certificate from the Royal Government of Bhutan on 07.04.2026, while Defendant No. 2 had secured an excise license from the Department of Excise & Prohibition, Jharkhand. Notably, neither Defendant had filed any application for registration of the impugned mark in India. InBrew alleged that the Defendants had slavishly copied the dominant and distinctive feature “THUNDER” from its registered mark THUNDERBOLT and merely substituted the word “BOLT” with the numeral “15000”, which was insufficient to distinguish the rival marks given the common consumer segment and trade channels.
