Deceptively Similar To ‘MASTIH': Delhi High Court Orders Cancellation Of ‘GRAND MASTI’ Trademark

The products are sold across counters in government-authorised liquor stores, consumers often rely on verbal recall of brand names rather than visual comparison of labels, it noted further.

The Court also rejected the argument that Radico had waived its rights by issuing a No Objection Certificate (NOC) in 2023. It held that the NOC was expressly issued “without prejudice” and only to permit the respondent to dispose of existing stock for a limited period due to a commercial relationship between the parties. Such a communication could not amount to waiver or estoppel against the petitioner’s trademark rights, the Bench said.

Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora while allowing the rectification petition noted the petitioner's argument that consumers of alcoholic beverages in such lower price segment are non-discerning and price-sensitive. Further, the use of the mark 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 consumers of average intelligence and imperfect recollection, thereby resulting in a clear likelihood of confusion.

“…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”, the Bench observed.

The Single-Judge Bench further noted “…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 recollection”.

Senior Advocate Rajshekhar Rao appeared for the petitioner and Nidhi Raman, CGSC appeared for the respondent.

In the matter, Radico Khaitan, a leading liquor manufacturer established in 1943, contended that it had been using the mark “MASTIH” since 1969 and in Devanagari script since 1992, building significant goodwill and reputation in the market. The company argued that Mohit Petrochemical Pvt. Ltd.’s adoption of the mark “GRAND MASTI” in 2021 for identical goods, country liquor was an attempt to ride on its established brand.

The Court noted that the dominant element of the respondent’s mark was “MASTI”, with the prefix “GRAND” appearing in smaller font on the packaging. It observed that both parties sold identical products through the same trade channels and to the same class of consumers. In such circumstances, the phonetic similarity between “MASTIH” and “MASTI” was sufficient to create a real likelihood of confusion.

Rejecting the respondent’s defence that the petitioner did not hold a standalone registration for the word “MASTIH,” the Court held that even where a dominant element forms part of a composite trademark, the proprietor is entitled to protection if the rival mark is deceptively similar.

Accordingly, the Court held that the impugned mark violated Sections 11(1), 11(3)(a) and 11(10)(ii) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and directed that the registration be cancelled and removed from the Trademark Register.

Cause Title: Radico Khaitan Ltd. v. Mohit Petrochemical Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. [Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:1890]

Appearances:

Petitioner: Rajshekhar Rao, Sr. Adv., Anirudh Bakhru, Ishani Chandra, Sagar Chandra, Srijan Uppal, Abhishek Bhati, Subhadeep Das and Ajay Sabharwal, Advocates.

Respondents: Sudeep Chatterjee, Rohan Swarup, Rajit Ghosh and Aastha Verma, Nidhi Raman, CGSC, Arnav Mittal, Mayank Sansanwal and Om Ram, Advocates.

Click here to read/download the Judgment