Radico Khaitan Ltd v. Superior Industries Ltd

CS(COMM) 507/2024

The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Radico Khaitan Ltd against Superior Industries Ltd. The court found that the Defendant's use of 'GREAT GRAND MASTI' for alcoholic beverages was highly likely to cause confusion and constitute trademark infringement or passing off against the Plaintiff's established mark, 'MASTIH'. This interim order immediately restricts the defendant from manufacturing or selling products bearing the impugned marks until the final hearing.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court
Case Number
CS(COMM) 507/2024
Judge(s)
C. Hari Shankar

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Delhi High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Radico Khaitan Ltd vs Superior Industries Ltd is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patent(T)CMA(PT) No. 158 of 2023

Syngene International LimitedvsThe Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs & The Controller of Patents

Syngene appealed the rejection of its patent application for a method predicting organ toxicity. The Controller rejected the application, citing lack of novelty and inventive step, particularly regarding the requirement of novel hardware for CRIs. The High Court set aside the impugned order, finding that the contribution lies in software and directing reconsideration based on updated guidelines.

patentCS(COMM) 806/2017 & I.A. 14129/2018

Dharampal Satyapal LimitedvsMr Basant Kumar Makhija & Ors.

The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff's application under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The court found that since the defendants raised a defense based on their registered mark (Section 30(2)(e)), and the plaintiff pleaded the invalidity of that registration, the plea was deemed prima facie tenable. Consequently, the Court framed an issue challenging the validity of the defendant's trademark and adjourned the suit for three months to allow the plaintiff to file a rectification petition.

patentCS(COMM) 47/2024 I.A. 1179/2024 (and related)

M/S SNS PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITEDvsMohammed Naim

The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of M/S SNS Products Private Limited against Mohammed Naim. The plaintiff, a long-standing manufacturer of spices under the 'SHAN-E-DELHI' brand, sought protection against the defendant who was using substantially similar packaging and the mark 'Proud-ek-Minar'. The court found that the plaintiff had prima facie established their case for infringement, noting the similarity in trade dress and the defendant's prior purchase of the plaintiff's products. Consequently, the defendant is temporarily restrained from using the infringing materials and must disclose all existing inventory.

patent2025:MHC:2145 (C.S No.602 of 2007)

Tractors And Farm Equipment LimitedvsStandard Corporation India Limited

Tractors And Farm Equipment Limited filed a suit against Standard Corporation India Limited alleging infringement of its copyright and passing off. The plaintiff asserted ownership over the copyrighted drawings for its popular MF 245 DI tractor model and alleged that the defendant's Standard 348 tractor was an identical copy, either through direct copying or reverse engineering. The defense challenged the originality of the drawings and raised issues regarding the applicability of copyright law versus design registration.

patentC.R.P.No. 3136 of 2023

M/S Chirec Public SchoolvsShri Shakti Schools Pvt. , Ltd.

The Telangana High Court dismissed a petition filed by M/S Chirec Public School challenging the Commercial Court's refusal to stay an infringement suit. The core issue was whether the petitioner had sufficiently established that the respondent's trademark registration was prima facie invalid, thereby warranting a stay under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The court found that despite averments in the written statement, the plea of invalidity lacked sufficient substantiation and could not be inferred as prima facie tenable. Consequently, the Commercial Court's decision to proceed with the infringement suit was upheld.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

Dealing with a patent challenge?

Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.

Talk to our patent team →

Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call