The Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained Bhutan-based Kinjore Brewery Private Limited from exporting its Thunder 15000 beer to India, following a trademark infringement suit filed by InBrew Beverages Private Limited, the registered proprietor of the Thunderbolt beer brand.
The interim order, passed by Justice Jyoti Singh, also restrains the entity importing, selling and distributing Thunder 15000 in Jharkhand from dealing in the beer under the disputed mark. The restrictions will remain in place until the next hearing, scheduled for December 21, 2026.
2,300-Year-Old Beer Found in a Bronze Bottle in China Reveals Ancient Brewing Techniques
Why Is Thunder 15000 Facing a Trademark Dispute?
InBrew approached the Delhi High Court alleging that Thunder 15000 is deceptively similar to its registered Thunderbolt trademark.
According to InBrew, the Thunderbolt mark has been in use since 1984, when Mount Shivalik Breweries Limited adopted it. The rights subsequently passed to Molson Coors India Private Limited before being acquired by InBrew. The company is currently the registered proprietor of the Thunderbolt mark for beer.
The dispute came to light after InBrew reportedly saw an Instagram post in May 2026 indicating that Thunder 15000 was being imported and sold in Jharkhand. The company alleged that the beer had been promoted in India since December 2025.
While Kinjore Brewery had obtained a Brand Registration Certificate for Thunder 15000 from Bhutan's Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue and Customs in April 2026, the parties involved had not applied for registration of the mark in India, according to the court proceedings.
DIAGEO Faces New FSSAI Scrutiny Over Packaging and Labeling
Court Finds Similarity Between the Two Beer Marks
A key issue before the court was the similarity between Thunderbolt and Thunder 15000.
InBrew argued that Thunder 15000 adopts the word “Thunder” in its entirety, replacing “Bolt” with the numeral “15000”. It further argued that both products are alcoholic beverages sold through similar trade channels and target overlapping consumers.
The court observed that “Thunder” forms a prominent and dominant part of the Thunderbolt mark. According to the court, simply adding the numeral “15000” was not sufficient to distinguish the competing mark.
The court also considered the common nature of the goods, trade channels and consumer base, finding a likelihood of confusion among consumers.
InBrew Raises Brand and Quality Concerns
Beyond the similarity between the names, InBrew also raised concerns about potential damage to the goodwill associated with its Thunderbolt brand.
The company told the court that it had no control over the manufacture, packaging or sale of the competing beer. Any quality issue associated with Thunder 15000, it argued, could potentially affect consumers' perception of Thunderbolt if they believed the two products were connected.
The court found, at the interim stage, that InBrew had established a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off. It also held that the balance of convenience favoured InBrew and that the company could suffer irreparable harm if an injunction was not granted.
What the Interim Order Means for Thunder 15000
Until the next hearing, the Indian entity dealing with Thunder 15000 has been restrained from manufacturing, selling, advertising, promoting, distributing, importing, exporting or otherwise dealing in alcoholic beverages under the mark Thunder 15000.
The restraint also extends to marks that are identical or deceptively similar to Thunderbolt and its formative marks.
Kinjore Brewery has separately been restrained from exporting the disputed products to India or importing them from India under the Thunder 15000 mark.
For the Indian beer market, the case highlights the importance of trademark protection as international and domestic beer brands compete for consumer attention. It also underlines how similarities in brand names can become particularly significant when competing products occupy the same category and move through similar distribution channels.
The matter is currently at the interim stage, and the Delhi High Court is scheduled to hear the case again on December 21, 2026.
