Back
Grants Interim Injunction to InBrew Beverages Over THUNDERBOLT Mark against THUNDER 15000
In a significant ruling, the has granted an ad interim injunction to , restraining the sale of beer under the mark ‘THUNDER 15000’ for being to its registered trademark ‘THUNDERBOLT’ . Justice Jyoti Singh, presiding over the commercial suit, found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case of and .
A Thunderous Clash Over Beer Brands
The dispute arises between InBrew, a leading alcoholic beverages company with a legacy spanning over five decades, and two defendants: , aBhutan-based manufacturer, and an unnamed entity responsible for importing and distributing the rival product in Jharkhand. InBrew has been using the trademark THUNDERBOLT for beer since , originally adopted by and later acquired through . The company holds valid registrations in Class 32, with the earliest dating back to .
The Origin of THUNDERBOLT: A Five-Decade Legacy
InBrew argued that its mark THUNDERBOLT has acquired immense reputation and goodwill, supported by extensive sales across India. The product portfolio includes over 43 spirits brands, and the company has pan-India presence across more than 20 states. The defendant’s mark THUNDER 15000 was discovered through an Instagram post in , which indicated that the beer had been promoted since .
The Challenge: Arrival of 'THUNDER 15000'
InBrew contended that the defendants adopted the dominant element ‘THUNDER’ from its mark, merely substituting ‘BOLT’ with the numeral ‘15000’. The plaintiff argued that this was a deliberate attempt to trade on its goodwill, especially since neither defendant had applied for registration of THUNDER 15000 in India. The defendants had obtained a Brand Registration Certificate from Bhutan’s authorities and an excise license from Jharkhand, but no trademark rights in India.
The Court's Analysis: Deceptive Similarity Established
Justice Jyoti Singh observed that the rival products are identical—both are beers—and the trade channels and consumer base overlap. The court noted that the defendants had adopted THUNDER in its entirety, which is the prominent and distinctive part of THUNDERBOLT . The addition of the numeral 15000 was insufficient to avoid confusion. The judge stated: “The impugned mark is to Plaintiff’s mark and is used for similar goods. Defendants have adopted THUNDER in entirety, which is the prominent and dominant part of THUNDERBOLT and addition of the numeral 15000 is not enough to distinguish the rival marks.”
Injunction Granted: Restraining and
The court held that InBrew had made out a prima facie case for an ex parte injunction. The lay in favor of the plaintiff, and was likely if the injunction were not granted. “Prima facie Defendants are infringing Plaintiff’s registered trademarks and their goods as those of the Plaintiff,” the judge concluded.
The order restrains Defendant No. 2 (the Jharkhand importer) and all persons acting on its behalf from manufacturing, selling, advertising, distributing, importing, exporting, or otherwise dealing in alcoholic beverages under the mark THUNDER 15000 or any mark to THUNDERBOLT . Additionally, Defendant No. 1 (the Bhutan manufacturer) is restrained from exporting the impugned products into India or importing them from India.
The matter is listed for further hearing on . InBrew is required to comply with the provisions of within two weeks.
