Inbrew Beverages Secures Legal Victory Against Kinjore Brewery Over "THUNDER 15000" Trademark
In a significant judgment dated August 11, 2026, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Jyoti Singh, granted an interim injunction in favor of Inbrew Beverages Private Limited, restraining Kinjore Brewery Private Limited and others from using the trademark "THUNDER 15000" for alcoholic beverages. This decision underscores the importance of trademark protection and marks a crucial development in the realm of intellectual property rights.
The plaintiff, Inbrew Beverages, a leading player in the alcoholic beverage industry, has been the registered proprietor of the trademark "THUNDERBOLT" since 1984. The company sought legal recourse against Kinjore Brewery, alleging that their use of the mark "THUNDER 15000" for similar goods was deceptively similar to "THUNDERBOLT", potentially misleading consumers and causing irreparable harm to Inbrew's goodwill and reputation.
Justice Singh, in her order, acknowledged that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case for the grant of an interim injunction. The court observed that the impugned mark "THUNDER 15000" closely mirrored the plaintiff's trademark, with "THUNDER" being the dominant element. The addition of the numeral "15000" was deemed insufficient to distinguish the two marks. Consequently, the court determined that the use of "THUNDER 15000" by the defendants amounted to both trademark infringement and passing off.
The court's decision emphasized that Inbrew Beverages' trademark "THUNDERBOLT" had been in continuous use since 1984, with substantial goodwill and reputation associated with it. The decision highlighted the likelihood of public confusion due to the similarity of the marks, as both companies operated in the alcoholic beverage industry with overlapping consumer segments and trade channels.
As a result, the court issued an interim injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling, or distributing any goods under the mark "THUNDER 15000". The injunction aims to prevent consumer confusion and protect the plaintiff's brand equity until the next hearing scheduled for December 21, 2026.
This judgment serves as a landmark example of the judiciary's role in safeguarding trademark rights and preventing the dilution of well-established brands. It reiterates the importance of distinguishing trademarks in the marketplace to avoid consumer deception and unfair competition.
Bottom Line :
Trademark law - Interim injunction granted restraining defendants from using a mark deceptively similar to plaintiff's registered trademark, which could mislead consumers and cause irreparable harm to plaintiff's goodwill and reputation.
Statutory provision(s): Trade Marks Act, 1999 Section 29, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2
