Radico Khaitan Ltd. vs Mohit Petrochemical Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: 30.10.2025
Date of Decision: 27.02.2026
Judgment uploaded on : 02.03.2026

+ C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 131/2025 & I.A. 13752/2025

RADICO KHAITAN LTD. .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Sr. Adv., Mr.
Anirudh Bakhru, Ms. Ishani Chandra,
sMr. Sagar Chandra, Ms. Srijan
Uppal, Mr. Abhishek Bhati, Mr.
Subhadeep Das and Mr. Ajay
Sabharwal, Advs.

versus

MOHIT PETROCHEMICAL PVT. LTD. & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sudeep Chatterjee, Mr. Rohan
Swarup, Mr. Rajit Ghosh and Ms.
Aastha Verma, Advs. for R-1.
Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC, Mr. Arnav
Mittal, Mr. Mayank Sansanwal and
Mr. Om Ram, Advs. for R-2.
%
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
J U D G M E N T

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J:
1. The present petition has been filed for the removal of the entry made
in the Register of Trade Marks in respect of Registration No. 4832282 for
the Trademark “GRAND MASTI” in Class 33 under Sections 57 of the
Trade Marks Act, 1999 (‘Act of 1999’).

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HEMANT
PRATAP SINGH
Signing Date:02.03.2026
19:06
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 131/2025 Page 1 of 35

Case set up the Petitioner:
2. The Petitioner is one of India’s leading liquor manufacturing and
marketing companies, established in the year 1943, and has acquired
substantial reputation and goodwill in the alcoholic beverages industry.
2.1. The Petitioner adopted the house/trademark “RADICO” in the year
1992 and has since launched and marketed several reputed brands under the
said house mark, including MASTIH , WINDIES, NAGINA, WINDIES
GOLD, UDAN, JHOOM, 8 PM, MAGIC MOMENTS, amongst others.
2.2. The Petitioner adopted the trade mark MASTIH in the year 1969. It
adopted this mark in Hindi Transliteration in Devanagari script मस्तीह् in the
year 1992 and has since been using the same extensively and continuously.
2.3. The Petitioner is the registered proprietor of the label mark, MASTIH
DESI MASALEDAAR SHARAB/
, wordmark MASTIH
GOLD , and device mark
in Class 33
for Alcoholic Beverages/Country Liquor (‘Petitioner’s trademarks’). The
details of the said registrations are set out in paragraph 17 of the petition.
This is a Petitioner’s flagship brand.
2.4. The said marks are prominently displayed in bold lettering on the
Petitioner’s packaging along with the house mark RADICO.
2.5. The Respondent has challenged Petitioner’s registration for the
wordmark MASTIH GOLD bearing TM No. 992738 in C.O. (COMM.IPD-
TM) 254/2025. In the said petition at the hearing dated 17.12.2025,
Petitioner made a statement that it is not relying on the said registration for
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HEMANT
PRATAP SINGH
Signing Date:02.03.2026
19:06
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 131/2025 Page 2 of 35

the challenge to the Respondent’s registration for the mark GRAND MASTI
in this captioned petition.
Overview of the dispute:
2.6. In or around October 2021, the Petitioner became aware of
Respondent No. 1’s goods, falling within the same class as that of the
Petitioner, bearing the mark ग्रैंड मस्ती (‘Impugned Mark’) and a label
(‘Impugned Label-1’), which was deceptively similar to the Petitioner’s
trademarks and label. The Respondent No. 1 uses the mark in the
Devanagari script on the goods though the registration is in English for
GRAND MASTI.
Consequently, the Petitioner filed an objection letter dated 30.10.2021
before the Office of the Commissioner of State Excise, Prayagraj, Uttar
Pradesh, objecting to the use of the said Impugned Mark and Impugned
1
Label-1 .
2.7. While the said proceedings before the Commissioner were pending,
the Petitioner in September 2022 came across the other variants of
Respondent’s Impugned Labels bearing the mark ग्रैंड मस्ती , being Impugned
2 3
Label-2 and Impugned Label-3 , which as well were deceptively similar to
the Petitioner’s trademarks.
2.8. The Petitioner issued a cease-and-desist notice dated 08.09.2022 to
Respondent No. 1.
2.9. Respondent No. 1 replied to the aforesaid notice vide reply dated
28.09.2022, wherein it denied the allegations of infringement and refused to
comply with the demands raised by the Petitioner.

1
Annexed as ANNEXURE-A along with this judgment
2
Annexed as ANNEXURE-B along with this judgment
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HEMANT
PRATAP SINGH
Signing Date:02.03.2026
19:06
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 131/2025 Page 3 of 35

2.10. Thereafter, a series of communications were exchanged between the
Petitioner and Respondent No. 1 to arrive at a settlement. Pursuant thereto,
and purely as an interim arrangement, the Petitioner, without prejudice to its
rights and contentions, and in consonance with Respondent No. 1’s own
undertaking before the Excise Commissioner issued a No Objection
4
Certificate (NOC) dated 10.07.2023. By way of the said NOC, the
Petitioner permitted Respondent No. 1 to use an alternate label, namely
5
Impugned Label-4 , solely for the limited purpose of disposal of existing
stock for the remaining financial year. The size of the words ग्रैंड मस्ती was
specifically approved so as to ensure that the word ग्रैंड appears prominently.
The said indulgence was extended by the Petitioner for the said financial
year only, considering the subsisting commercial relationship with the
Respondent No.1, who had been bottling the Petitioner’s brands ‘Windies’
and ‘Nagina’ and was not intended to confer any permanent or proprietary
rights upon Respondent No. 1. The said NOC expired at the end of the year.


3
Annexed as ANNEXURE-B along with this judgment
4
Annexed as Document no. 17 [Petitioner’s documents]
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HEMANT
PRATAP SINGH
Signing Date:02.03.2026
19:06
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 131/2025 Page 4 of 35

2.11. It is stated that in or about June 2024, the Petitioner again came across
the impugned goods of Respondent No. 1 bearing yet another distinct label,
6
namely Impugned Label–5 , which was deceptively similar. Consequently,
the Petitioner issued another cease-and-desist notice dated 17.06.2024,
calling upon Respondent No. 1 to desist from the alleged infringing
activities.
2.12. Prior to issuing its reply, Respondent No. 1 served a caveat dated
26.06.2024 upon the Petitioner, indicating its intention to contest any legal
proceedings. Subsequently, vide reply dated 28.06.2024, Respondent No. 1
denied the allegations and declined to comply with the notice, contending
inter alia that the earlier NOC was issued pursuant to a settlement and that
no dispute subsisted in respect of the impugned mark ग्रैंड मस्ती .
2.13. It is stated that the Petitioner again in around May 2025 came across
the present variant of the impugned goods referred to as Impugned Label-6,
bearing the nearly identical impugned mark ग्रैंड मस्ती .
2.14. It is stated that in the present Impugned Label-6, the prominent and
essential feature is मस्ती/MASTI , whereas the prefix ग्रैंड/GRAND is
written in a significantly smaller font. The intent of the Respondent No. 1 is
therefore to treat मस्ती/MASTI as the dominant feature of the mark. The
Impugned Label-6 is deceptively similar to the Petitioner’s trademarks. The
said Impugned Label-6/present variant has been reproduced as under:

5
Annexed as Annexure C
6
Annexed as ANNEXURE-D along with this judgment

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HEMANT
PRATAP SINGH
Signing Date:02.03.2026
19:06
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 131/2025 Page 5 of 35

2.15. The Petitioner contends that a prior contractual relationship existed
between the parties, during which the Respondent acquired full knowledge
of the Petitioner’s goods sold under the trademarks मस्तीह् /MASTIH, its
goodwill, and sales figures, which stood at INR 1,293.47 crores in 2020-
2021 and increased to INR 1,552.17 crores in 2021-2022. Despite such
knowledge, the Respondent proceeded to adopt and launch goods under a
similar name, in violation of the Petitioner’s proprietary rights.
2.16. Aggrieved by the continued use of the Impugned Label-6, the
Petitioner filed a further objection letter dated 20.05.2025 before the
Commissioner of State Excise, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, objecting to the
approval and use of the Impugned Label-6 by Respondent No. 1. Thereafter,
the present rectification petition was filed on 23.05.2025.
SUBMISSIONS BY THE PETITIONER:
2.17. It is submitted that the Petitioner is a prior adopter of the mark
मस्तीह् /MASTIH, and has been using the same in Devanagari script since
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HEMANT
PRATAP SINGH
Signing Date:02.03.2026
19:06
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 131/2025 Page 6 of 35

1992, whereas the Respondent No. 1 adopted the mark only in 2021 and
filed for the registration of its mark GRAND MASTI on 23.01.2021 under
Class 33 on a proposed-to-be-used basis. It uses the mark in Devanagari
ग्रैंड मस्ती
script on its goods.
3. The impugned mark ग्रैंड मस्ती/ GRAND MASTI is deceptively similar
to the Petitioner’s mark मस्तीह् /MASTIH as it wholly incorporates the
dominant and essential feature MASTIH. The mere addition of the laudatory
prefix ‘GRAND’ does not distinguish the impugned mark and instead
creates the false impression of a brand extension of the Petitioner’s mark. It
is well settled that laudatory epithets are insufficient to avoid trade mark
infringement. Reliance is being placed upon the judgment Ram Rakhpal v
7
Amrit Dhara Pharmacy and Amritdhara Pharmacy v Satya Deo
8
Gupta .
4. It is submitted that the labelling guidelines by the State Excise
Department, Uttar Pradesh, for Country Liquor mandates a green border and
white background, which both Petitioner and Respondent No. 1’s goods
follow. The use of the nearly identical mark ग्रैंड मस्ती/ GRAND MASTI in
addition to the uniform trade dress significantly increases the likelihood of
confusion amongst the consumers.
5. Further, consumers of alcoholic beverages in this lower price segment
are non-discerning and price-sensitive. In such circumstances, the use of the
mark ग्रैंड मस्ती/ GRAND MASTI with respect to the Alcohol
beverages/country liquor being sold in the same shops and to the same class
of customers, is likely to cause confusion and deception in the minds of

7
1956 SCC OnLine All 385 [Paragraph Nos. 32-34 and 97]
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HEMANT
PRATAP SINGH
Signing Date:02.03.2026
19:06
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 131/2025 Page 7 of 35

consumers of average intelligence and imperfect recollection, thereby
resulting in a clear likelihood of confusion. Reliance has been placed on the
9
judgment Mohan Meakin Limited v A.B. Sugar Limited and Allied
10
Blenders & Distillers Pvt Ltd. v. Shree Nath Heritage Liquor Pvt Ltd.
6. It is submitted that the prominent part of the impugned mark is
MASTI and the Respondent No.1 is also using the Hindi transliteration of
the Impugned Mark on its Impugned Goods packaging.
7. It is stated that the Respondent No. 1 has taken inconsistent positions.
While it contends that the expression MASTI is a common word not capable
of exclusive registration, it has itself applied for registration of the mark
GRAND MASTI, thereby seeking proprietary rights over the same
expression. Such inconsistent conduct amounts to approbation and
reprobation and cannot be permitted in law.
8. It is submitted that the mere fact that the excise authorities have
11
granted a license to Respondent no.1 to market its goods under the
impugned mark would not in any manner impinge upon the legal rights of
the Petitioner to maintain this petition. The examination of a label by the
authorities under the Excise Act is for a purpose different from that
prescribed under the Act of 1999 for the Registrar of Trade Marks. Reliance
has been placed upon the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in
12
Radico Khaitan Limited v. Brima Sagar Maharashtra Distilleries Ltd .
9. It is respectfully submitted that the allegations of waiver, estoppel,
delay, acquiescence, or prior consent raised by Respondent No. 1 are wholly

8
1962 SCC OnLine SC 13 [Paragraph No. 8]
9
2013 SCC OnLine Del 4120 [Paragraph No. 11]
10
2014 SCC OnLine Del 3412 [Paragraph Nos. 14-20]
11
Annexed as Document No.6 [Respondent’s documents]

12
2014 SCC OnLine Del 2036 [Paragraph No.117]

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HEMANT
PRATAP SINGH
Signing Date:02.03.2026
19:06
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 131/2025 Page 8 of 35

misconceived. The Petitioner has consistently opposed the mala fide
adoption and use of the impugned mark ग्रैंड मस्ती/ GRAND MASTI at all
material times. Respondent No. 1 was repeatedly placed on notice of the
Petitioner’s statutory and common law rights in the mark मस्तीह् /MASTIH
through an objection letter dated 30.10.2021, cease-and-desist notice(s)
dated 08.09.2022 and 17.06.2024, an objection dated 20.05.2025 before the
Commissioner of Excise, and the present rectification proceedings.
10. Further, it is submitted that the NOC dated 10.07.2023 was issued
strictly ‘without prejudice’, solely to permit disposal of existing stock for the
said calendar year under a limited interim arrangement arising from the
parties’ commercial bottling relationship, and applied only to Impugned
Label-4; it neither concerned nor authorised to the use of the impugned mark
ग्रैंड मस्ती/ GRAND MASTI .
In law, a without-prejudice communication does not amount to waiver
or acquiescence; consequently, the said NOC cannot be construed as consent
or abandonment of the Petitioner’s rights in मस्तीह् /MASTIH, nor as
approval of the impugned mark. Reliance has been placed on the judgment
passed by the Supreme Court in NTPC Ltd. v. Reshmi Constructions,
13
Builders & Contractors .
SUBMISSION BY THE RESPONDENT

11. It is submitted that under the Uttar Pradesh Excise Policy 2025–26, a
valid trade mark registration is mandatory for liquor licensing. Respondent
No. 1’s trademark registration for GRAND MASTI is a regulatory
requirement essential for lawful business operations. The rectification

13
(2004) 2 SCC 663 [Paragraph No. 35]
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HEMANT
PRATAP SINGH
Signing Date:02.03.2026
19:06
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 131/2025 Page 9 of 35

petition is a mala fide and anti-competitive attempt to cancel a mark critical
for compliance, which would jeopardise an established business and
undermine fairness and stability under the Act of 1999.
12. It is submitted that the manufacture and sale of country-made liquor
in Uttar Pradesh is strictly regulated by annual norms issued by the Excise
14
Commissioner. Under the Circular dated 06.02.2025 , manufacturers must
follow uniform packaging requirements, including a white background,
green border, and prescribed mandatory disclosures. Respondent No. 1’s
goods bearing the mark ग्रैंड मस्ती/ GRAND MASTI fully comply with these
statutory norms. Any similarity in packaging arises solely from mandatory
regulatory requirements and not from ornamental use or bad faith adoption
by Respondent No. 1.
13. It is submitted that the NOC dated 10.07.2023 issued by the Petitioner
was clear, unconditional, and contained no reservation, disclaimer, or
limitation. Its intent must be ascertained from its plain terms and not from
subsequent assertions made by the Petitioner in these proceedings. Having
voluntarily granted consent, the Petitioner is estopped from resiling
therefrom, as the doctrine of approbate and reprobate bars a contradictory
stance. The NOC constitutes a binding agreement between the parties, which
cannot be unilaterally withdrawn. Respondent No. 1 relied on this consent to
invest resources, build goodwill, and operate lawfully. The Petitioner’s
silence and inaction amount to waiver and tacit approval, entitling
Respondent No. 1 to continue use of its registered mark, as recognised in
15
Chairman, State Bank of India v. M.J. James .

14
Order No. 09/2025/255 E-2/Thirteen-2025-01/2025/1888979
15
(2022) 2 SCC 301
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HEMANT
PRATAP SINGH
Signing Date:02.03.2026
19:06
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 131/2025 Page 10 of 35

14. It is submitted that the Petitioner had knowledge of Respondent No.
1’s use of the mark “GRAND MASTI” since October 2021 but remained
inactive until September 2022 and thereafter issued an unconditional NOC
on 10.07.2023. The petition filed in mid-2025 reflects an unexplained delay
of nearly four (4) years, amounting to waiver. During this period,
Respondent No. 1 made substantial investments and goodwill, with sales
rising from INR 9.43 crore to INR 41.61 crore. Reliance has been placed on
the judgments passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in Hindustan Pencils v.
16 17
India Stationery and Rhizome Distilleries v. Pernod Ricard , in which
it was held that even a few years' delay, especially where the defendant’s
commercial presence has expanded with the plaintiff’s knowledge, can
defeat the claims for interim relief.
15. It is submitted that the Petitioner holds registration only for a
composite label mark ‘ MASTIH DESI MASALEDAAR SHARAB ’ along
with other elements, and for MASTIH GOLD as a device mark. Petitioner
has no standalone registration for MASTIH or MASTI and cannot claim a
monopoly over the common dictionary word MASTI.
It is further submitted that Respondent No. 1’s mark ‘GRAND
MASTI’ must be assessed as a whole in accordance with the settled anti-
18
dissection principle, as reiterated in Parle Products v. J.P. & Co . and
Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satyadeo Gupta (supra ), which prohibit
comparison of isolated elements of composite marks.
16. It is submitted that the disputes concerning similarity of liquor labels
fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Excise Commissioner under

16
AIR 1990 Delhi 19
17
2009 SCC OnLine Del 3361
18
AIR 1972 SC 1359
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HEMANT
PRATAP SINGH
Signing Date:02.03.2026
19:06
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 131/2025 Page 11 of 35

Clause 5.13.1(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Excise Policy 2025–26. Despite
repeated objections by the Petitioner, the Excise Commissioner has not
found any similarity. Via bypassing this competent authority and
approaching this Court after failed attempts, the Petitioner has indulged in
forum shopping, acknowledging the Excise Commissioner as the appropriate
forum.
17. It is submitted that the consumers in the alcoholic beverage industry
develop strong brand loyalty through repeated purchases, driven primarily
by taste, quality, price, and overall experience rather than packaging or
advertising. The term ‘ मस्ती /MASTI’ is widely used by multiple registered
trademarks in Class 33, demonstrating that it is common to the trade and not
exclusive to any single entity. Given statutory restrictions on liquor
advertising in India, consumers rely on product-specific attributes to
distinguish brands, as seen with marks such as MASTIH and GRAND
MASTI. In this regard, the reliance is placed on the judgments in Pernod
19
Ricard India Pvt. Ltd. v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra and Khoday
20
Distilleries Ltd. v. Scotch Whisky Association .
COURT’S ANALYSIS
18. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record.
19. The Respondent has broadly raised three principal defences. First, it is
asserted that the rival marks are not deceptively similar. Second, it is urged
that the petitioner does not have any standalone registration for the word
मस्तीह् /MASTIH or मस्ती /MASTI and therefore the rival marks have to be

19
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1701
20
2008 SCC OnLine SC 975

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HEMANT
PRATAP SINGH
Signing Date:02.03.2026
19:06
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 131/2025 Page 12 of 35

compared as a whole and the petitioner cannot be permitted to dissect the
marks. Third, reliance is placed on the NOC dated 10.07.2023 issued by the
petitioner in proceedings before the Excise Commissioner under the Uttar
Pradesh Excise Policy during the Financial Year 2023-24, contending that
the said NOC amounts to consent by the Petitioner to the Respondent’s use
of the impugned mark ग्रैंड मस्ती /GRAND MASTI and that the Petitioner’s
claim is barred by waiver and estoppel.
20. This Court shall now proceed to examine the Respondent’s first
submission relating to the alleged absence of deceptive similarity between
the rival marks.
21. The petitioner is the registered proprietor of the label mark मस्तीह् देसी
मसालेदार शराब /MASTIH DESI MASALEDAAR SHARAAB held vide TM
No. 566892 and device mark मस्तीह् गोल्ड- Mastih Gold held vide TM No.
6338157, both under Class 33.
22. The TM No. 566892 records user detail of the mark since 01.07.1969
and therefore substantiates the submission of the petitioner that it adopted
the word MASTIH as a part of its trademark in the year 1969. The
petitioner’s contention that it adopted MASTIH in Devanagari script मस्तीह्
in 1992 is duly borne out from TM No. 566892, as the application was made
on 04.02.1992.
23. The Petitioner has placed on record its sales figures for the period
2003-2025 for the goods sold under the mark constituting the word
‘MASTIH/ मस्तीह् , thereby evidencing continuous use.
21,
Also, as pleaded the sales turnover of the Petitioner’s goods sold

21
Paragraph 22 of the petition
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HEMANT
PRATAP SINGH
Signing Date:02.03.2026
19:06
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 131/2025 Page 13 of 35

under the mark मस्तीह् /MASTIH was INR 1,293.47 crores during the
financial year 2020-21 and INR 1,552.17 crores during the financial year
2021-22, which is the relevant period when the Respondent No. 1 adopted
the impugned mark . The Petitioner’s sales in the following years stood at
INR 1670.13 crores in 2024-25. The Petitioner has filed its Chartered
Accountant certificate dated 19.05.2025 in support of these figures. In its
reply, Respondent no. 1 has not disputed the sales figures.
The said sales figures evidence the reputation and goodwill of the
petitioner’s goods in the market.
24. The Respondent, is/was admittedly a bottler of the petitioner for its
other alcoholic brands Windies and Nagina and thus, has a commercial
relationship with the petitioner. The Respondent no. 1 independently also
has its own alcohol beverages as enlisted in paragraph 75 of its reply and is
therefore a regular market player in this field. Thus, as a matter-of-fact
Respondent no. 1 is completely aware of the petitioner’s goods sold under
the marks incorporating the word मस्तीह् /MASTIH and the goodwill and
reputation of the petitioner’s marks and goods. With such knowledge, the
Respondent no. 1 consciously adopted the impugned mark ग्रैंड
मस्ती /GRAND MASTI in the year 2021 and applied for its registration on
23.01.2021 under identical Class 33 on a proposed-to-be-used basis.
25. In the aforenoted facts, the petitioner is certainly the prior adopter of
the word मस्तीह् /MASTIH as a part of its trademark, between these parties.
26. The Petitioner is presently marketing its goods under two (2) distinct
मस्तीह् देसी शराब (मसाला)/
marks MASTIH DESI SHARAAB (MASALA)
and मस्तीह् गोल्ड मस्तीह्
/MASTIH GOLD, each incorporating the word
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HEMANT
PRATAP SINGH
Signing Date:02.03.2026
19:06
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 131/2025 Page 14 of 35

/MASTIH in the Hindi language. A perusal of the present use of the
Petitioner’s marks as seen on the goods shows that the word मस्तीह्
/MASTIH constitutes the dominant, distinctive, and source-identifying
element of the marks. The Petitioner’s marks, as used in trade, are
reproduced hereunder:


The rival marks of the Petitioner and Respondent as it appears on the
rival goods are reproduced hereunder. In this comparison, Petitioner’s mark
मस्तीह् देसी शराब (मसाला)/ MASTIH DESI SHARAAB (MASALA) as used
on its goods and Respondent no. 1’s mark ग्रैंड मस्ती /GRAND MASTI as per
Impugned Label-6 is reproduced hereunder:
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HEMANT
PRATAP SINGH
Signing Date:02.03.2026
19:06
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 131/2025 Page 15 of 35

As is apparent, the parties are using their respective marks in relation
to identical goods, namely, country liquor sold in tetra packs, catering to the
same trade channels and the same class of consumers.
27. 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).
Upon review of the aforesaid packaged products, 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HEMANT
PRATAP SINGH
Signing Date:02.03.2026
19:06
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 131/2025 Page 16 of 35

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.
28. There is no doubt in the mind of this Court that to the class of
consumers of these goods i.e., country liquor in tetra-pack, which is sold in
uniform packaging, the fine difference in the spelling of मस्ती /MASTI and
मस्तीह् /MASTIH will be indistinguishable lost on both the consumer as well
as the retailer. Moreover, the fact that both competing goods are priced
identically at Rs. 75, will also enhance the likelihood of consumer confusion
due to the rival marks, who is unlikely to question the origin/manufacturer
being satisfied with the price of the Respondent no. 1’s goods.
29. It is an admitted position that all manufacturers/sellers are required to
adhere to a uniform packaging regime under the Uttar Pradesh Excise
Policy, presently white background and green border, and to that extent,
there is similarity in the overall trade dress of the tetra packs owing to
statutory compliance. The element of fruits in petitioner’s packaging on one
hand and tumblers on the Respondent no. 1’s packaging on the other hand, is
a negligible difference and is unlikely to serve as a distinguishing factor so
as to alert the customer to think that these goods are from different
manufacturers, especially since, these goods are not sold in departmental
stores where a consumer selects them (with some deliberation) from the
shelves. These products are sold in government authorised liquor stores
where the same are handed over to the consumer across the counter on
demand by reference to the trademark/trade name. In this method of sale, the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HEMANT
PRATAP SINGH
Signing Date:02.03.2026
19:06
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 131/2025 Page 17 of 35

phonetic pronunciation of the trademark as recollected by the consumer
assumes material significance and the phonetic similarity of the rival
trademarks is bound to give rise to a substantial confusion between the
consumer and the retailer, giving unfair advantage to the Respondent’s
products.
30. It is also apposite to refer to the decision of the Coordinate Bench in
Mohan Meakin Limited (supra), which squarely governs the controversy
at hand. In the said judgment, the Court held that, in respect of alcoholic
beverages positioned in the lower price segment, the class of purchasers is
generally not highly discerning, which correspondingly increases the
likelihood of confusion amongst the consuming public. The Coordinate
Bench further observed that, in such cases, the absence of visual similarity is
of limited relevance where phonetic similarity exists, as consumers are more
likely to identify and purchase the goods on the basis of phonetic
impression.
31. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in Ram Rakhpal v. Amrit
22
Dhara Pharmacy (supra) has held that certain categories of words,
particularly those which are merely laudatory or which form part of the
common stock of the English language are inherently incapable of acquiring
distinctiveness and, consequently, are required to remain open for public use
and are not amenable to exclusive appropriation or registration.
In the present case, in the Court’s considered opinion, the mere
addition and use of the word ग्रैंड /GRAND by the Respondent for the
creation of the impugned mark ग्रैंड मस्ती /GRAND MASTI does not
materially distinguish the Respondent’s mark so as to negate confusion as
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HEMANT
PRATAP SINGH
Signing Date:02.03.2026
19:06
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 131/2025 Page 18 of 35

the Respondent itself lays emphasis on the word मस्ती /MASTI. On the
contrary, such use is likely to create a false and misleading impression of a
brand extension or association with the petitioner’s MASTIH goods, thereby
aggravating the likelihood of confusion.

32. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this
Court is of the considered opinion that the Petitioner’s mark and the
Respondent’s mark are phonetically similar, resulting in a real, substantial,
and tangible likelihood of confusion. Having regard to the overall
impression conveyed by the rival marks, this Court is further satisfied that
the Respondent’s mark ग्रैंड मस्ती /GRAND MASTI is deceptively similar to
the Petitioner’s marks, and is likely to mislead or confuse an unwary
consumer as to the source, affiliation, or trade connection of the goods.
33. In these facts, 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.
34. With respect to the Respondent’s second contention that the Petitioner
does not have any standalone registration of the word मस्तीह् /MASTIH, it
would be apposite to refer to the judgment of the Division Bench in WOW
23
MOMO Foods Private Limited v. WOW Burger & Anr. , wherein it has

22
Paragraph nos. 32-34 and 94
23
2025:DHC:9320-DB

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HEMANT
PRATAP SINGH
Signing Date:02.03.2026
19:06
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 131/2025 Page 19 of 35

been elucidated that even in the absence of registration of the dominant
element of the mark, which, in the present case, would be मस्तीह् /MASTIH,
the proprietor is nevertheless entitled to protection where the
Respondent/rival mark is found to be deceptively or confusingly similar to
the petitioner’s mark. The relevant paragraph of the judgment is as follows:
“43. The learned Single Judge has also observed that the appellant
has no registration for the mark WOW or WOW! This aspect is also
irrelevant. Under Section 17(2)(a)(ii), the absence of any trademark
registration in favour of the appellant, for WOW as a standalone
mark, can only disentitle the appellant from claiming exclusivity over
WOW as a standalone mark. The proscription against any claim to
exclusivity, where the composite mark contains any part which is not
separately registered as a trade mark, is “in the matter forming only a
part of the whole of the trade mark so registered”. The absence of
any registration, in favour of the appellant, for WOW, therefore,
would disentitle the appellant only from claiming exclusivity over
WOW as a standalone mark. The absence of any registration, held by
the appellant, for WOW does not, in any manner, erode the
appellant’s claim of exclusivity over the mark WOW MOMO or
impact its entitlement to relief against infringement by any other
person, by use of a mark which is confusingly or deceptively similar
to WOW MOMO, such as WOW BURGER.”
( )
Emphasis Supplied
35. The Respondent has contended that the Petitioner has no standalone
registration for the mark मस्ती/ MASTI or मस्तीह् / MASTIH , and since this is
an ordinary dictionary word, it cannot be monopolised by the Petitioner.
The Petitioner has placed on record documents evidencing its long
and continuous use of its mark, evidencing its reputation and goodwill in its
marks मस्तीह् देसी मसालेदार शराब /MASTIH DESI MASALEDAAR
SHARAAB, मस्तीह् देसी शराब ( मसाला )/MASTIH DESI SHARAAB
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HEMANT
PRATAP SINGH
Signing Date:02.03.2026
19:06
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 131/2025 Page 20 of 35

(MASALA) and मस्तीह् गोल्ड- Mastih Gold wherein the word
मस्तीह्/ MASTIH is the dominant element.
The Respondent’s adoption of the impugned mark, which on the
packaging bears a striking resemblance to the Petitioner’s marks in respect
of an identically priced product and where the dominant element of the mark
is phonetically similar, is evidently calculated to mislead consumers into
believing that the Respondent’s goods originate from, or are associated with,
the Petitioner. Notably, the Respondent has itself acknowledged in its
pleadings and written submissions that in the alcoholic beverages trade,
consumer loyalty is predominantly influenced by taste and price . In such
circumstances, the likelihood of confusion is significantly amplified.
Consequently, the Petitioner faces a serious risk of erosion of goodwill and
reputation, as consumers, misled by the deceptive similarity, may purchase
the Respondent’s products under the mistaken impression that they are those
of the Petitioner.
36. The Respondent contends that the Respondent no. 1’s mark ग्रैंड
मस्ती /GRAND MASTI cannot be artificially dissected to isolate the element
मस्ती/ MASTI , and compared with the Petitioner’s marks instead, it must be
assessed in its composite form, which conveys a distinct overall impression
and reduces any likelihood of confusion amongst the consumers.
37. The aforesaid submission advanced by the Respondent is wholly
untenable. A bare perusal of Impugned Label Nos. 1 to 6 (adopted by the
Respondent between 2021 to 2025) clearly demonstrates that, in its own
packaging, the Respondent has prominently emphasised the word
मस्ती /MASTI while using the impugned mark. By consciously highlighting
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HEMANT
PRATAP SINGH
Signing Date:02.03.2026
19:06
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 131/2025 Page 21 of 35

and foregrounding this expression on the packaging, the Respondent has
itself rendered मस्ती /MASTI the dominant and distinguishing feature of the
impugned mark. In this regard, it is apposite to place reliance on a judgment
passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment of M/s. South
24
India Beverages Pvt Ltd v. General Mills Marketing Inc & Anr
wherein while deliberating on the rule of ‘ anti-dissection ’ and identification
of the dominant feature the Court observed that the step of identifying the
dominant element of a mark is not in violation of anti-dissection principle,
rather it is a preliminary step on the way to an ultimate determination of the
confusion amongst the consumers.
The dominant feature test was also applied by the Division Bench in
the recent judgment of WOW MOMO Foods Private Limited v. WOW
25
Burger (supra) .
38. In the facts of the present case, this Court is of the considered view
that the Respondent has with the awareness of the goodwill of the
Petitioner’s marks, in bad faith adopted the dominant and essential feature of
the Petitioner’s mark मस्तीह् /MASTIH and merely prefixed the laudatory
expression GRAND to formulate the impugned mark. The changing size of
the font of GRAND vis-à-vis MASTI in the packaging of impugned label 1
to 6, shows that the said laudatory word has been included by the
Respondent only to enable it to raise a legal defence of distinction. Such
adoption by the Respondent, when the marks are compared as a whole,
results in a mark that is deceptively similar and is likely to cause confusion
and deception among consumers of average intelligence and imperfect

24
(2015) 61 PTC 231, paras 20, 21 and 37
25
At paras 46 and 47
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HEMANT
PRATAP SINGH
Signing Date:02.03.2026
19:06
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 131/2025 Page 22 of 35

recollection.
Extensive third-party use of the common word ‘MASTI’
39. The Respondent has contended that the word मस्ती /MASTI/MASTIH/
मस्तीह् is not exclusive to any single entity, including the Petitioner, but
rather is commonly used by several entities in this trade. The Respondent
has enlisted the other third-party marks for identical goods at paragraph 59
of its reply, which use the term मस्ती /MASTI as a part of their mark. It
therefore contends that in these facts, the Petitioner cannot claim exclusive
proprietary rights in the word मस्तीह् /MASTIH .
This Court finds no merit in this submission. The Respondent herein
has obtained registration for the impugned mark ग्रैंड मस्ती /GRAND MASTI
on the premise that it is distinctive. The Respondent therefore acknowledges
that the term ग्रैंड मस्ती /GRAND MASTI is capable of distinguishing its
goods from its rivals. Pertinently, in its written submission under para VI
(first bullet point) concedes that the term MASTI is a prominent element of
its trademark. It is settled law, a registered proprietor cannot, while
defending an action for infringement or passing off, contend that the very
mark in which it claims statutory rights is common to trade, as such a plea is
inconsistent with the assertion of exclusivity inherent in registration.
40. Moreover, the Respondent has failed to prove that the other parties
using the word मस्ती/ MASTI have significant business turnover or they
posed a threat to Petitioner’s goodwill. It is equally well settled that the
proprietor is not obliged to initiate proceedings against every minor or
26
insignificant infringer. As recognised in Pankaj Goel v Dabur India and

26
2008 SCC OnLine Del 1744 at paragraph nos. 21 and 22
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HEMANT
PRATAP SINGH
Signing Date:02.03.2026
19:06
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 131/2025 Page 23 of 35

27
Assam Roofing Ltd. & Anr. v JSB Cement LLP & Anr , selective
enforcement of trademark rights does not dilute the proprietor’s entitlement
to seek relief against a substantial and deceptive infringement. It is the
prerogative of the registered proprietor of a mark who to sue to protect its
rights.
41. This leads the Court to the third contention concerning the effect of
NOC dated 10.07.2023 issued by the Petitioner in favour of Respondent no.
1 before the Excise Commissioner, U.P for the financial year 2023-24. The
Respondent no. 1 has contended that issuance of the NOC constitutes waiver
and estoppel. The Petitioner, on the other hand, has submitted that the NOC
was issued with the clear disclaimer ‘without prejudice’ and therefore
cannot constitute a waiver or estoppel. The Petitioner contends that the
consent for use of Impugned Label no. 4 for 2023-24 was given to enable
Respondent no. 1 to exhaust its stock, so as to mitigate the losses of
Respondent no. 1 and this gesture was made keeping in view the commercial
relationship between the parties.

42. The Respondent has relied upon the judgment of Chairman, State
Bank of India (supra) to contend that in view of the NOC, the Petitioner is
stopped from maintaining this petition. The aforesaid judgment arose under
Arbitration Act, 1940 and pertained to a No Demand certificate issued by
the contractor with an endorsement of ‘without prejudice’. The employer
was relying on the No Demand certificate to contend that the contractor
cannot maintain the arbitration proceedings. The Court however rejected the
argument of the employer and held that the arbitration agreement survived
despite issuance of the No Demand certificate due to the endorsement of

27
2015 SCC OnLine Cal 6581 at paragraph no. 89

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HEMANT
PRATAP SINGH
Signing Date:02.03.2026
19:06
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 131/2025 Page 24 of 35

without prejudice in the said certificate.
In the considered opinion of this Court, this judgment supports the
contention of the Petitioner herein that the issuance of the NOC dated
10.07.2023 was conditional and does not foreclose the rights of the
Petitioner to maintain this petition.
In fact, in this judgment, the Supreme Court has referred with
approval its earlier judgment in Supdt. (Tech. I), Central Excise v Pratap
28
Rai wherein it was held that the implication of the term ‘without prejudice’
means that the cause of the matter has not been decided on merits and fresh
proceedings according to law is not barred. The relevant portion of the
judgment reads as under:
6. In the case of Thimmasamudram Tobacco Co. v. Assistant
Collector of Central Excise, Nellore Division, Nellore [AIR 1961
AP 324] while construing the provisions of the Central Excise and
Salt Act which was almost on identical terms as the Customs Act, a
Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court observed as
follows (AIR p. 325, para 11):

“Assuming that Section 35 of the Central Excise Act does not
clothe the Appellate Authority with power to remand the
matter to the officer whose order is appealed against, nothing
stands in the way of the Assistant Collector initiating the
proceedings afresh, when his order was quashed not on merits
but on technical grounds i.e. for not following either the
procedure or the dictates of natural justice. In a case where the
flaw in the order appealed against consists of in the non-
observance of certain procedure or in not giving effect to the
maxim ‘audi alteram partem’, it is open to the officer
concerned to start the procedure once again with a view to
follow the rules of procedure and the principles of natural
justice.”

We find ourselves in complete agreement with the view taken by

28
(1978) 3 SCC 113 at paragraph nos. 6 and 7
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HEMANT
PRATAP SINGH
Signing Date:02.03.2026
19:06
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 131/2025 Page 25 of 35

the Andhra Pradesh High Court and the observations made by
Reddy, C.J. who spoke for the Court. It is obvious that in the instant
case the Appellate Collector found that the order of the Assistant
Collector suffered from a serious procedural infirmity viz. that it
was passed without giving the respondent a proper opportunity of
being heard, and, therefore, had to be vacated. In such
circumstances, therefore it cannot be said that fresh proceedings by
complying with the rules of natural justice could not be started
against the respondent. The Appellate Collector has clearly used the
words “without prejudice” which also indicate that the order of the
Collector was not final and irrevocable. The term “without
prejudice” has been defined in Black's Law Dictionary as follows:

“Where an offer or admission is made ‘without
prejudice’, or a motion is denied or a bill in equity
dismissed ‘without prejudice’, it is meant as a declaration
that no rights or privileges of the party concerned are to
be considered as thereby waived or lost, except in so far as
may be expressly conceded or decided. See, also, Dismissal
Without Prejudice.”

Similarly, in Wharton's Law Lexicon the author while interpreting
the term “without prejudice” observed as follows:

“The words import an understanding that if the
negotiation fails, nothing that has passed shall be taken
advantage of thereafter; so, if a defendant offers, ‘without
prejudice’, to pay half the claim, the plaintiff must not only
rely on the offer as an admission of his having a right to some
payment.

The rule is that nothing written or said ‘without
prejudice’ can be considered at the trial without the consent of
both parties—not even by a Judge in determining whether or
not there is good cause for depriving a successful litigant of
costs.... The word is also frequently used without the
foregoing implications in statutes and inter partes to exclude
or save transactions, acts and rights from the consequences of
a stated proposition and so as to mean ‘not affecting’, ‘saving’
or excepting.”

7. In short, therefore, the implication of the term “without
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HEMANT
PRATAP SINGH
Signing Date:02.03.2026
19:06
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 131/2025 Page 26 of 35

prejudice” means (1) that the cause or the matter has not been
decided on merits, (2) that fresh proceedings according to law were
not barred. It is true that the Appellate Collector does not say in so
many words that the case is remanded to the Assistant Collector but
the tenor and the spirit of the order clearly shows that what he
intended was that fresh proceedings should be started against the
respondent after complying with the rules of natural justice. Thus,
in our view a true interpretation of the order of the Appellate
Collector would be that the order of the Assistant Collector was a
nullity having violated the rules of natural justice and having been
vacated the parties would be relegated to the position which they
occupied before the order of the Assistant Collector was passed. In
this view of the matter the Assistant Collector had ample
jurisdiction in issuing the notice against the respondent in order to
start fresh adjudicatory proceedings in accordance with law.

[Emphasis supplied]


43. This Court thus, finds merit in the Petitioner’s submission that since
the said NOC was expressly accompanied by an endorsement of “without
prejudice” the Petitioner did not waive its rights and objections qua the
impugned mark . The material/documents placed on record demonstrate that
the Petitioner has consistently opposed the Respondent no. 1’s use of the
impugned mark. In this backdrop, and considering the subsisting
commercial relationship between the parties, the Petitioner’s limited consent
in 2023-24 for enabling the disposal of the Respondent no.1’s existing stock,
to mitigate losses, appears to be a reasonable and pragmatic arrangement.
44. Moreover, the NOC was issued specifically for the layout of
Impugned Label No. 4. The Respondent no. 1 has admittedly deviated from
the said layout and on this ground also the NOC cannot be relied upon for
the layout adopted for Impugned Label No. 6, which is currently in use. The
conduct of the Respondent no. 1 in adopting Impugned Label No. 5 and 6
where once again the word ग्रैंड / GRAND has been placed in smaller font
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HEMANT
PRATAP SINGH
Signing Date:02.03.2026
19:06
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 131/2025 Page 27 of 35

compared to the word मस्ती /MASTI evidences the dishonest intention of the
Respondent no. 1 to ride upon the reputation and goodwill of the Petitioner’s
marks containing the word मस्तीह् /MASTIH.
45. This Court finds no merit in the contention of Respondent No. 1
regarding alleged delay and laches on the part of the Petitioner. The record
reflects continuous correspondence between the parties, wherein the
Petitioner consistently opposed the use of the impugned mark. The plea that
the Respondent has, invested in developing goodwill is equally untenable,
29
particularly when the Respondent itself admits in its written submissions
that statutory restrictions on liquor advertising preclude promotional
expenditure for the product in question. Mere reliance on sales figures for
the period 2021-2025 does not establish the creation of any independent
goodwill, especially in light of the substantial and prior sales of the
Petitioner already noted herein. This Court, therefore, finds no merit in the
submission of Respondent no. 1 that the Petitioner’s claim is barred by
waiver and estoppel from maintaining these proceedings, as there has been
no conscious waiver of his rights.
Jurisdiction
46. The Respondent has also questioned the jurisdiction of this Court to
entertain this petition on the ground that the issue is already pending
consideration before the Excise Commissioner. This objection is without
merit and is no longer res integra. Reliance placed by the Petitioner on the
judgment of the Coordinate Bench in M/s Radico Khaitan Limited v. M.S.
Brima Sagar (supra) is apposite, wherein it has been categorically held that
questions relating to infringement and passing off fall squarely within the

29
At para VI bullet point 2
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HEMANT
PRATAP SINGH
Signing Date:02.03.2026
19:06
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 131/2025 Page 28 of 35

jurisdiction of this Court, and that the pendency of proceedings before the
Excise Commissioner does not operate as a bar to the maintainability of
such proceedings. This proceeding seeking rectification of the Trademark
Register is a statutory remedy available to the Petitioner. This relief of
rectification cannot be granted by the Excise Commissioner and thus, these
proceedings have been rightly instituted.
Statutory grounds invoked by the Petitioner under the Act of 1999, which are
attracted in the facts of this case
47. The Petitioner has averred that the impugned registration is in
violation of Section 2(1)(i)(iv) of the Act of 1999 as the impugned mark is
devoid of any distinctive character and is not capable of distinguishing the
goods of the Respondent from those of the Petitioner. It has also averred that
the impugned mark is deceptively similar to the Petitioner’s dominant
feature मस्तीह् /MASTIH causing confusion and deception among the public
to believe that the origin of the rival products is same, thus violating Section
2(1)(i)(IV) of the Act of 1999. The said provisions read as under: -
“Section 2: Definitions and Interpretation.-
(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, -
…
(i) false trade description means—
…
(IV) any marks or arrangement or combination thereof when
applied-
(a) to goods in such a manner as to be likely to lead
persons to believe that the goods are the manufacture or
merchandise of some person other than the person whose
merchandise or manufacture they really are;
(b) in relation to services in such a manner as to be likely
to lead persons to believe that the services are provided or
rendered by some person other than the person whose
services they really are; or
(Emphasis supplied)
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HEMANT
PRATAP SINGH
Signing Date:02.03.2026
19:06
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 131/2025 Page 29 of 35

48. The Petitioner has contended that the impugned registration is
violative of Section 11(1) 11(3)(a) and 11(10)(ii) of the Act of 1999, which
reads as under:
“11. (1) Save as provided in section 12, a trade mark shall not be
registered if, because of---
(a) its identity with an earlier trade mark and similarity of goods or
services covered by the trade mark; or
(b) its similarity to an earlier trade mark and the identity or similarity
of the goods or services covered by the trade mark.
there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public, which
includes the likelihood of association with the earlier trade mark
… …

(3) A trade mark shall not be registered if, or to the extent that, its use
in India is liable to be prevented-
(a) by virtue of any law in particular the law of passing off protecting
an unregistered trade mark used in the course of trade
(b) by virtue of law of copyright
… …

(10) While considering an application for registration of a trade mark
and opposition filed in respect thereof, the Registrar shall--
(i) protect a well-known trade mark against the identical or similar
trade marks;
(ii) take into consideration the bad faith involved either of the
applicant or the opponent affecting the right relating to the trade mark.

… …”
(Emphasis supplied)

49. 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HEMANT
PRATAP SINGH
Signing Date:02.03.2026
19:06
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 131/2025 Page 30 of 35

as bona fide. The Respondent’s impugned mark is not distinctive and is
incapable of distinguishing its goods from the goods of the Petitioner.
50. Keeping in view the aforesaid findings returned in favour of the
Petitioner, this Court holds the said impugned mark is liable to be
rectified/expunged in view of Sections 11(1), 11(3)(a) and 11(10)(ii) of the
Act of 1999.
51. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the impugned trademark
registration no. 4832282 is directed to be cancelled and removed from the
Trademark Register. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
52. The Registry is directed to communicate a copy of this order to
Respondent No. 2 through e-mail for compliance.


MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
(JUDGE)

FEBRUARY 27, 2026/ AJ
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HEMANT
PRATAP SINGH
Signing Date:02.03.2026
19:06
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 131/2025 Page 31 of 35

ANNEXURE-A
Impugned label-1












Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HEMANT
PRATAP SINGH
Signing Date:02.03.2026
19:06
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 131/2025 Page 32 of 35

ANNEXURE-B
Impugned Labels 2 AND 3


















Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HEMANT
PRATAP SINGH
Signing Date:02.03.2026
19:06
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 131/2025 Page 33 of 35

ANNEXURE-C
Impugned Label -4



















Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HEMANT
PRATAP SINGH
Signing Date:02.03.2026
19:06
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 131/2025 Page 34 of 35

ANNEXURE-D
Impugned label-5




Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HEMANT
PRATAP SINGH
Signing Date:02.03.2026
19:06
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 131/2025 Page 35 of 35