Delhi High Court Directs Removal Of 'GRAND MASTI' Trademark For Similarity To Radico Khaitan's 'MASTIH'

The Delhi High Court recently allowed a rectification petition filed by Radico Khaitan Ltd., formerly Rampur Distillery & Chemical Company Ltd., directing the removal and cancellation of the 'GRAND MASTI' trademark registration held by Mohit Petrochemical Pvt. Ltd. from the Trade Marks Register.

Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, in a judgment delivered on 27 February 2026, observed that the registered mark was deceptively similar to Radico Khaitan's established 'MASTIH' brand, in use since 1969.

Radico Khaitan Ltd. filed the rectification petition against Mohit Petrochemical and the Registrar of Trade Marks, contending that the rival mark was deceptively similar to its 'MASTIH' brand. The company argued that the addition of the laudatory prefix 'GRAND' did not distinguish the mark but instead created a false impression of a brand extension, giving rise to a likelihood of confusion.

Mohit Petrochemical had previously acted as a bottler for Radico Khaitan's other brands. In its defence, it contended that any similarity in trade dress was a result of mandatory labeling guidelines issued by the Uttar Pradesh Excise Department, which require uniform packaging for country liquor. The company also claimed that Radico Khaitan had waived its right to object by issuing a No Objection Certificate (NOC) in July 2023, permitting the use of an alternate label for a specified period.

The Court found that the adoption of the mark by Mohit Petrochemical was not bona fide, particularly given the parties' prior commercial relationship, and that the phonetic similarity was likely to cause confusion among consumers of country liquor.

Regarding the NOC, the Court observed that it did not constitute a waiver or estoppel, as it was expressly issued with a “without prejudice” endorsement. The Bench remarked:

“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.”

Justice Arora noted that the NOC was a pragmatic arrangement to mitigate losses for a limited period and did not authorize permanent use of the mark.

Accordingly, the Court found that the mark was likely to mislead or confuse an unwary consumer as to the source or affiliation of the goods and directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to cancel and remove the impugned mark from the Register.