- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Artificial Intelligence
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- Environmental, Social, and Governance
- Foreign Direct Investment
- Food and Beverage
- Gaming
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- In Focus
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- IP & Tech Era
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Student Corner
- Take On Board
- Tax
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Viewpoint
- Zoom In
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- Middle East
- Africa
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Artificial Intelligence
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- Environmental, Social, and Governance
- Foreign Direct Investment
- Food and Beverage
- Gaming
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- In Focus
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- IP & Tech Era
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Student Corner
- Take On Board
- Tax
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Viewpoint
- Zoom In
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- Middle East
- Africa
Delhi High Court Restrains Fresh Social Media Promotion of ‘Glenwalk Godfather Whiskey’ Till Next Hearing in Trademark Suit
Delhi High Court Restrains Fresh Social Media Promotion of ‘Glenwalk Godfather Whiskey’ Till Next Hearing in Trademark Suit
Introduction
The Delhi High Court has passed an interim direction restraining Sanjay Dutt-backed Cartel Bros Private Limited from releasing any fresh social media posts relating to its “Glenwalk Godfather Whiskey”, in a trademark infringement suit instituted by Devans Modern Breweries Limited. The Court recorded the defendant’s statement that the product had already entered the distribution chain up to retailers in Mumbai and Thane, but that retailers had been instructed not to offer the product for sale until the next hearing.
Factual Background
The dispute arises from a trademark suit filed by Devans Modern Breweries Limited against Cartel Bros Private Limited in relation to the defendant’s proposed product “Glenwalk Godfather Whiskey.” The plaintiff objected to the use of the expression “Godfather” in connection with whisky products and sought urgent interim protection to prevent launch-related publicity and market confusion.
When the matter was taken up, counsel for Cartel Bros informed the Court that the product had already been distributed through the supply chain and had reached the level of retailers in Mumbai and Thane, Maharashtra. However, it was further submitted that the retailers in those cities had been specifically instructed not to place the product on sale till the next date of hearing.
Procedural Background
The matter came up before Justice Tushar Rao Gedela on 2 April 2026. The defendant appeared through counsel on advance notice and accepted summons in the suit. Upon recording the statement made on behalf of the defendant, the Court proceeded to pass an interim protective direction concerning fresh promotional activity on social media, while fixing timelines for pleadings.
Issues
1. Whether the defendant should be restrained from releasing fresh social media posts relating to “Glenwalk Godfather Whiskey” pending adjudication of the trademark dispute.
2. Whether existing third-party dissemination of advertisements or online references not attributable to the defendant should continue to bind the defendant.
Contentions of Parties
The plaintiff, Devans Modern Breweries Limited, sought urgent protection against the defendant’s use and promotion of the mark “Godfather” in relation to whisky, contending that such use infringed and diluted its trademark rights.
The defendant, Cartel Bros, while appearing on advance notice, stated that the product had already moved into the distribution channel up to retailers, but assured the Court that the retailers concerned had been instructed not to offer the product for sale until the next hearing. It also undertook not to be responsible for any pre-existing public listings or disseminations that did not emanate from it or its authorised supply chain.
Reasoning and Analysis
The Court considered the defendant’s statement and found it appropriate to maintain status quo on active promotional dissemination pending further hearing. Since the product had already entered the supply chain, immediate recall was not the subject of the present order; instead, the Court focused on preventing fresh market amplification through social media campaigns.
Accordingly, the Court directed that no fresh social media posts in respect of the impugned product shall be released by Defendant No. 1 till the next date of hearing.
At the same time, the Court clarified that any existing advertisements, listings, or references already available in the public domain which do not emanate from the defendant, its distributors, or retailers would not be attributable to Cartel Bros, thereby limiting the scope of the restraint to the defendant’s own promotional ecosystem. The Court also streamlined the pleadings process by directing the defendant to file its written statement within 30 days along with an affidavit of admission and denial, while granting liberty to the plaintiff to file replication thereafter.
Decision
The Delhi High Court directed Cartel Bros Private Limited not to release any fresh social media posts concerning “Glenwalk Godfather Whiskey” until the next hearing. The matter has been listed before the Court on 10 April 2026, with proceedings before the Joint Registrar on 9 July 2026 for completion of pleadings.
In this case the plaintiff was represented by Senior Advocate J. Sai Deepak with Advocates Suhrita Majumdar, Afzal B. Khan, M. Mukherjee, Sharad Besoya, Bal Krishan Singh and Purnima Vasishtha. Meanwhile the defendant was represented by Advocates Gaurav Bahl, Ajit N. Makhijani and Gokul Sharma.



