Deceptively Similar: Delhi High Court Rules in Favour of Radico Khaitan, Cancels “Grand Masti” Liquor Trademark

The Delhi High Court has ordered the cancellation of the trademark “Grand Masti” used for country liquor, holding that it is deceptively similar to the longstanding “MASTIH” mark owned by Radico Khaitan Ltd..

Court observed that the phonetic similarity between the two marks was sufficient to create a real likelihood of confusion among consumers, particularly given the nature of the market in which such products are sold.

The bench of Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora delivered the ruling while allowing a rectification petition filed by Radico Khaitan. Court directed that the impugned trademark be cancelled and removed from the register, finding that its adoption violated several provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

“A perusal of Respondent’s Impugned Label-6 reveals that on the packaging the word ग्रैंड/GRAND in comparison with the word मस्ती/MASTI has been depicted in a comparatively smaller font, thereby directing the consumer’s attention predominantly towards the word मस्ती/MASTI, which clearly emerges as the dominant and prominent element of the Respondent no. 1’s mark. Similarly, in the Petitioner’s goods as well the word मस्तीह्/MASTIH is the dominant element of the mark मस्तीह् देसी शराब (मसाला)/MASTIH DESI SHARAAB (MASALA)”, court ruled.

The dispute centred on the use of the mark “Grand Masti” by Mohit Petrochemical Pvt. Ltd. for country liquor products. Radico Khaitan, one of India’s leading liquor manufacturers, argued that the respondent’s mark was deceptively similar to its well established “MASTIH” brand. The company informed the court that it had been using the “MASTIH” mark since 1969 and had also adopted the Devanagari version of the mark in 1992. Over the decades, the brand had built considerable goodwill and recognition in the liquor market.

Radico contended that the respondent adopted the mark “Grand Masti” in 2021 for identical goods, namely country liquor. According to the company, the adoption of this mark was an attempt to ride on the reputation and goodwill associated with its established brand.

The high court examined the competing trademarks and the manner in which the products were marketed. Court observed that country liquor in this price segment is commonly sold in tetra packs through government authorised liquor shops. In such retail settings, consumers typically purchase products quickly across counters and often rely on verbal recall of brand names rather than detailed visual comparison of packaging or labels.

Because of these purchasing conditions, court noted that the average consumer in this market segment is likely to have imperfect recollection of brand names. The phonetic similarity between “MASTIH” and “MASTI” therefore assumes greater significance.

Court accepted the petitioner’s argument that the dominant element of the respondent’s mark was the word “MASTI”. The prefix “Grand” appeared in smaller font on the packaging, which suggested that it had been added primarily as a descriptive or laudatory expression rather than as a distinct identifier. Court observed that the varying size of the word “Grand” compared with “Masti” in the respondent’s packaging indicated that the prefix had been included largely to create an appearance of distinction.

“….it is evident that the clear intent of the seller/manufacturer is to have the customer to recall/identify the trademark of the goods as मस्तीह्/MASTIH, by the Petitioner and मस्ती/MASTI, by the Respondent no. 1, respectively. The phonetic similarity of the words मस्तीह्/MASTIH and मस्ती/MASTI is not disputed. The use of the Devnagari script by both the parties on the packaging of the dominant feature has made the phonetic pronunciation identical”, court ruled.

It held that the respondent had adopted the dominant and essential feature of the petitioner’s trademark with knowledge of its existing goodwill in the market. According to the court, such adoption amounted to bad faith, particularly when the marks were used for identical products sold through the same trade channels to the same category of consumers.

““….in the considered opinion of this Court, the Respondent’s adoption of the mark GRAND MASTI in respect of identical goods cannot be regarded as bona fide. The petitioner is certainly the prior adopter of its trademarks comprising of the dominant element मस्तीह्/MASTIH and Respondent no. 1’s adoption is a clear attempt to ride on the reputation and goodwill of the Petitioner’s marks and cause confusion on the part of the public…”, the court ruled.

The Court further stated that when the marks were compared as a whole, the resemblance between them was sufficient to cause confusion or deception among consumers of average intelligence and imperfect recollection.

The respondent attempted to defend its mark by arguing that Radico Khaitan did not hold a standalone trademark registration for the word “MASTIH” by itself. However, court rejected this argument and clarified that even where a particular element forms part of a composite trademark, the proprietor can still seek protection if the dominant portion of the rival mark is deceptively similar.

Another defence raised by the respondent related to a No Objection Certificate issued by Radico Khaitan in 2023. The respondent argued that this document indicated that the petitioner had effectively consented to the use of the mark. Court did not accept this submission.

Court noted that the No Objection Certificate had been issued expressly without prejudice and only for a limited commercial purpose. It was intended to allow the respondent to clear existing stock for a short period due to a business relationship between the parties. Such a communication, court held, could not be interpreted as a waiver of trademark rights or as creating any estoppel against the petitioner.

After examining the evidence and the legal provisions involved, court concluded that the impugned mark violated Sections 11(1), 11(3)(a), and 11(10)(ii) of the Trade Marks Act. These provisions deal with the prohibition of registration of trademarks that are identical or deceptively similar to earlier marks and likely to cause confusion in the marketplace.

Accordingly, the Delhi High Court directed that the registration of the mark “Grand Masti” be cancelled and removed from the trademark register.

“Having concluded that the Petitioner is the prior adopter of the trademarks which constitute मस्तीह्/MASTIH as the dominant feature of its mark and that the Respondent’s adoption of the impugned mark ग्रैंड मस्ती/GRAND MASTI with the identical dominant feature मस्ती/MASTI in the year 2021, with the prior knowledge of the Petitioner’s existing mark and the reputation as well as goodwill subsisting therein, cannot be regarded as bona fide. The Respondent’s impugned mark is not distinctive and is incapable of distinguishing its goods from the goods of the Petitioner”, court ruled.

Case Title: Radico Khaitan Ltd. v. Mohit Petrochemical Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Bench: Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

Date of Judgement: March 2, 2026