{"id":26604,"date":"2026-07-04T05:28:26","date_gmt":"2026-07-04T05:28:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=26604"},"modified":"2026-07-04T05:33:23","modified_gmt":"2026-07-04T05:33:23","slug":"registered-trademark-protection-despite-non-use","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/registered-trademark-protection-despite-non-use\/","title":{"rendered":"Registered Trademark Protection Despite Non-Use"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h2 id=\"h-introduction\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Introduction\"><\/span>Introduction<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Trademark disputes in the alcoholic beverage industry frequently raise complex questions regarding brand identity, consumer perception, reputation, and the extent of protection available to registered trademarks. The decision in <strong>Devans Modern Breweries Limited v. Cartel Bros Private Limited &amp; Anr.<\/strong> is significant because it addresses whether a long-established trademark used primarily for beer can prevent another business from using the same mark for whisky.<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_85 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/registered-trademark-protection-despite-non-use\/#Introduction\" >Introduction<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/registered-trademark-protection-despite-non-use\/#Why_This_Judgment_Is_Important\" >Why This Judgment Is Important<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/registered-trademark-protection-despite-non-use\/#Factual_and_Procedural_Background\" >Factual and Procedural Background<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/registered-trademark-protection-despite-non-use\/#Key_Facts_at_a_Glance\" >Key Facts at a Glance<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/registered-trademark-protection-despite-non-use\/#Dispute_Before_the_Court\" >Dispute Before the Court<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/registered-trademark-protection-despite-non-use\/#Legal_Issues_for_Determination\" >Legal Issues for Determination<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/registered-trademark-protection-despite-non-use\/#Reasoning_and_Analysis_of_the_Court\" >Reasoning and Analysis of the Court<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/registered-trademark-protection-despite-non-use\/#Registered_Trademark_Rights_and_Alleged_Non-Use\" >Registered Trademark Rights and Alleged Non-Use<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/registered-trademark-protection-despite-non-use\/#Beer_and_Whisky_as_Allied_and_Cognate_Goods\" >Beer and Whisky as Allied and Cognate Goods<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-10\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/registered-trademark-protection-despite-non-use\/#Judicial_Precedents_Relied_Upon\" >Judicial Precedents Relied Upon<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-11\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/registered-trademark-protection-despite-non-use\/#Application_of_the_Anti-Dissection_Rule\" >Application of the Anti-Dissection Rule<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-12\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/registered-trademark-protection-despite-non-use\/#Knowledge_of_the_Plaintiffs_Existing_Trademark_Rights\" >Knowledge of the Plaintiff&#8217;s Existing Trademark Rights<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-13\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/registered-trademark-protection-despite-non-use\/#Finding_on_Goodwill_Dilution_and_Unfair_Advantage\" >Finding on Goodwill, Dilution and Unfair Advantage<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-14\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/registered-trademark-protection-despite-non-use\/#Final_Decision_of_the_Court\" >Final Decision of the Court<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-15\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/registered-trademark-protection-despite-non-use\/#Point_of_Law_Settled\" >Point of Law Settled<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-16\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/registered-trademark-protection-despite-non-use\/#Key_Legal_Principles_Established\" >Key Legal Principles Established<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-17\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/registered-trademark-protection-despite-non-use\/#Case_Details\" >Case Details<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The judgement examines the scope of trademark protection under the <strong>Trade Marks Act, 1999<\/strong>, particularly where competing products fall in different trademark classes but belong to the broader category of alcoholic beverages. The court also considered important principles relating to non-use of trademarks, allied and cognate goods, likelihood of confusion, dilution of reputation, and the anti-dissection rule applicable to composite marks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The ruling is particularly relevant for trademark owners, businesses launching new brands, intellectual property practitioners, and companies operating in industries where brand reputation constitutes a valuable commercial asset.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-why-this-judgment-is-important\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Why_This_Judgment_Is_Important\"><\/span>Why This Judgment Is Important<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Clarifies trademark protection across different classes of alcoholic beverages.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Examines the doctrine of allied and cognate goods.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Discusses the effect of alleged non-use of a registered trademark.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Explains the anti-dissection rule for composite trademarks.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Addresses likelihood of consumer confusion and passing off.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Highlights protection of goodwill and brand reputation.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-factual-and-procedural-background\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Factual_and_Procedural_Background\"><\/span>Factual and Procedural Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Devans Modern Breweries Limited claimed to be one of India&#8217;s leading manufacturers of alcoholic beverages and asserted long-standing use of the trademark <strong>\u201cGODFATHER\u201d<\/strong> since 1984 in relation to beer. The company possessed registrations for the mark in Class 32 for beer and also held registrations in Class 33 covering alcoholic beverages other than beer, including whisky and rum. The plaintiff contended that over several decades of commercial use, advertising, sales promotion, and market presence, the mark \u201cGODFATHER\u201d had acquired substantial goodwill and reputation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">According to the plaintiff, it discovered social media announcements indicating that Cartel Bros Private Limited intended to launch whisky products bearing the mark \u201cGODFATHER\u201d. Further investigation revealed that the defendants had filed trademark applications in Class 33 incorporating the word \u201cGODFATHER\u201d, including applications filed on a proposed-to-be-used basis in early 2026.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The plaintiff instituted a commercial suit for trademark infringement and passing off and simultaneously sought an interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The defendants resisted the application, contending that they proposed to market whisky under a composite mark that prominently featured \u201cTHE GLENWALK\u201d and \u201cBY SANJAY DUTT\u201d, with \u201cGODFATHER\u2019S\u201d appearing only as one component of the overall branding. The defendants also argued that the plaintiff had not substantially used the \u201cGODFATHER\u201d mark in relation to whisky for several years and therefore should not be entitled to exclusive protection in that segment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-key-facts-at-a-glance\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_Facts_at_a_Glance\"><\/span>Key Facts at a Glance<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Particular<\/th><th>Details<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Plaintiff<\/td><td>Devans Modern Breweries Limited<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Defendants<\/td><td>Cartel Bros Private Limited &amp; Anr.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Trademark in Dispute<\/td><td>&#8220;GODFATHER&#8221;<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Plaintiff&#8217;s Primary Product<\/td><td>Beer<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Defendants&#8217; Proposed Product<\/td><td>Whisky<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Trademark Classes Involved<\/td><td>Class 32 (Beer) and Class 33 (Alcoholic beverages other than beer)<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Nature of Suit<\/td><td>Trademark infringement, passing off, and interim injunction<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-dispute-before-the-court\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Dispute_Before_the_Court\"><\/span>Dispute Before the Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff&#8217;s trademark registrations remained enforceable despite allegations of limited use in relation to whisky.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court also had to decide whether beer and whisky could be regarded as allied and cognate goods even though they are classified separately under trademark law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Another important question was whether the defendants\u2019 proposed branding, including \u201cTHE GLENWALK GODFATHER\u2019S BY SANJAY DUTT\u201d, was sufficiently different from the plaintiff\u2019s mark to avoid infringement and passing off.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The parties also disputed whether the anti-dissection rule prevented the court from focusing on the word \u201cGODFATHER\u201d in isolation and whether consumers were likely to associate the defendants\u2019 whisky with the plaintiff\u2019s well-known alcoholic beverage brand.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-legal-issues-for-determination\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Legal_Issues_for_Determination\"><\/span>Legal Issues for Determination<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Whether the plaintiff&#8217;s trademark registrations remained enforceable despite allegations of limited use for whisky.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Whether beer and whisky are allied and cognate goods under trademark law.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Whether the defendants&#8217; proposed composite mark infringed the plaintiff&#8217;s registered trademark.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Whether the anti-dissection rule prevented examination of the dominant element &#8220;GODFATHER&#8221;.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Whether the defendants&#8217; branding was likely to cause consumer confusion or passing off.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Whether the plaintiff&#8217;s goodwill and reputation deserved protection across alcoholic beverage products.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-reasoning-and-analysis-of-the-court\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Reasoning_and_Analysis_of_the_Court\"><\/span>Reasoning and Analysis of the Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court began by examining the statutory framework governing registered trademarks. It referred to Sections 18, 28 and 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and emphasised that registration itself grants enforceable proprietary rights. The Court observed that a registered proprietor can sue for infringement notwithstanding allegations of non-use unless the registration is first removed or rectified in accordance with law. The Court relied upon <em>Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd v. Coca Cola Co.<\/em>, (1995) 5 SCC 545, which recognised that statutory trademark rights are not dependent upon continuous use.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-registered-trademark-rights-and-alleged-non-use\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Registered_Trademark_Rights_and_Alleged_Non-Use\"><\/span>Registered Trademark Rights and Alleged Non-Use<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The defendants had argued that the plaintiff had not meaningfully used the \u201cGODFATHER\u201d mark for whisky after 2013. The court, however, noted that the plaintiff had produced invoices and supporting material indicating use of the mark for whisky and rum. While the evidentiary value of those documents would ultimately be tested at trial, the Court found them sufficient at the interim stage to support a prima facie case of use.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-beer-and-whisky-as-allied-and-cognate-goods\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Beer_and_Whisky_as_Allied_and_Cognate_Goods\"><\/span>Beer and Whisky as Allied and Cognate Goods<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">A major issue concerned whether beer and whisky were allied and cognate goods. The Court observed that both products are alcoholic beverages, are sold through common trade channels, are available at the same retail outlets, and are regulated under similar excise frameworks. Although differences existed in price, alcohol content, storage requirements, and consumer preferences, those distinctions were not decisive. The Court held that the nature, purpose, and commercial relationship between the products justified treating them as allied and cognate goods.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-judicial-precedents-relied-upon\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Judicial_Precedents_Relied_Upon\"><\/span>Judicial Precedents Relied Upon<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">While reaching this conclusion, the Court referred to the following precedents:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><em>FDC Limited v. Docsuggest Healthcare Services Pvt. Ltd.<\/em>, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 6381.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>Raj Kumar Sharma v. Sandeep Kumar<\/em>, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 492.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>Radico Khaitan Ltd v. Devans Modern Breweries <\/em>Ltd, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 7483.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>Today Tea Ltd. v. Today Foods Pvt. Ltd.<\/em>, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8345.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>Preetendra Singh Aulakh v. Green Light Foods Pvt. Ltd.<\/em>, MANU\/DE\/2853\/2023.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-application-of-the-anti-dissection-rule\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Application_of_the_Anti-Dissection_Rule\"><\/span>Application of the Anti-Dissection Rule<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The court next considered the defendants\u2019 reliance on the anti-dissection rule and the decision of the Supreme Court in <em>Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd v. Karamveer Singh Chhabra<\/em>, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1701. While acknowledging that composite marks must ordinarily be assessed as a whole, the Court held that the dominant and essential feature of the defendants\u2019 branding remained the word \u201cGODFATHER\u201d. The addition of \u201cTHE GLENWALK\u201d and \u201cBY SANJAY DUTT\u201d did not sufficiently dilute the prominence of that expression.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-knowledge-of-the-plaintiff-s-existing-trademark-rights\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Knowledge_of_the_Plaintiffs_Existing_Trademark_Rights\"><\/span>Knowledge of the Plaintiff&#8217;s Existing Trademark Rights<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court also noted that the defendants had earlier sought registration of \u201cTHE GODFATHER\u201d and had responded to objections raised by the Trade Marks Registry concerning the plaintiff\u2019s existing registrations. This demonstrated awareness of the plaintiff\u2019s rights and cast doubt on the bona fides of the adoption.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-finding-on-goodwill-dilution-and-unfair-advantage\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Finding_on_Goodwill_Dilution_and_Unfair_Advantage\"><\/span>Finding on Goodwill, Dilution and Unfair Advantage<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Ultimately, the Court concluded that the plaintiff\u2019s mark had acquired substantial goodwill over four decades and that consumers were likely to associate the defendants\u2019 whisky products with the plaintiff. The Court found that the ingredients of Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, relating to dilution and unfair advantage were prima facie satisfied.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-final-decision-of-the-court\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Final_Decision_of_the_Court\"><\/span>Final Decision of the Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The court held that the plaintiff had established a strong prima facie case for the grant of interim relief. It found that continued use of \u201cGODFATHER\u201d or \u201cGODFATHER\u2019S\u201d by the defendants was likely to dilute the plaintiff\u2019s trademark and cause consumer association with the plaintiff\u2019s business.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The interim injunction application was allowed. The defendants, their officers, agents, successors, and all persons acting on their behalf were restrained from manufacturing, bottling, marketing, advertising, selling, exporting, or otherwise using the marks \u201cGODFATHER\u201d or \u201cGODFATHER\u2019S\u201d in relation to whisky during the pendency of the suit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The defendants were also directed to remove all online advertisements, listings, social media posts, and digital content bearing the impugned marks and to initiate take-down requests wherever such content had been published.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-point-of-law-settled\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Point_of_Law_Settled\"><\/span>Point of Law Settled<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The judgement reinforces the principle that a validly registered trademark remains enforceable unless rectified or cancelled in accordance with law, and allegations of non-use alone do not defeat infringement claims at the interim stage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The decision further clarifies that beer and whisky may constitute allied and cognate goods despite being classified separately, where their nature, trade channels, consumer base, and commercial realities demonstrate a sufficient relationship.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The ruling also reiterates that the anti-dissection rule does not protect a composite mark where the dominant and essential feature is identical or deceptively similar to another party\u2019s registered trademark. Courts may grant injunctive relief where such use is likely to cause confusion, dilution, or unfair exploitation of goodwill.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-key-legal-principles-established\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_Legal_Principles_Established\"><\/span>Key Legal Principles Established<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Legal Issue<\/th><th>Principle Settled by the Court<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Registered Trademark Rights<\/td><td>A registered trademark remains enforceable until it is cancelled or rectified in accordance with law.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Non-Use Defence<\/td><td>Allegations of non-use alone do not defeat an infringement action at the interim stage.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Beer and Whisky<\/td><td>Beer and whisky may constitute allied and cognate goods based on trade channels, consumer perception, and commercial realities.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Composite Marks<\/td><td>The anti-dissection rule does not apply where the dominant and essential feature of a composite mark is identical or deceptively similar to a registered trademark.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Trademark Dilution<\/td><td>Courts may grant interim injunctions where use of a similar mark is likely to cause confusion, dilution, or unfair advantage.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-case-details\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Case_Details\"><\/span>Case Details<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><tbody><tr><th>Title of the Case<\/th><td><strong>Devans Modern Breweries Limited Vs Cartel Bros Private Limited &amp; Anr.<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Date of Judgment\/Order<\/th><td>22.06.2026<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Case Number<\/th><td>CS(COMM) 346\/2026<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Neutral Citation<\/th><td>2026:DHC:5156<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Name of Court<\/th><td>High Court of Delhi<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Name of the Honourable Judge<\/th><td>Justice Tushar Rao Gedela<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-yoast-seo-related-links yoast-seo-related-links\">\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/trade-mark-infringement-and-passing-off-involving-numerals-haywards-5000-vs-cox-5001\/\">Trademark Infringement and Passing Off Involving Numerals: Haywards 5000 Vs Cox 5001<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/khoday-distilleries-vs-scotch-whisky-association-trademark-case\/\">Delay, Acquiescence, And Waiver Can Bar Trademark Rectification Proceedings<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/khoday-distilleries-v-scotch-whisky-association-peter-scot-trademark-judgment\/\">Khoday Distilleries Ltd v. Scotch Whisky Association: Supreme Court Landmark Judgment on Deceptive Trademarks, Peter Scot Whisky &amp; Trademark Rectification<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/decoding-transparency-addressing-ambiguities-in-indias-food-and-alcoholic-beverage-labelling-regulations\/\">Decoding Transparency: Addressing Ambiguities in India\u2019s Food and Alcoholic Beverage Labelling Regulations<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/publici-juris-and-laudatory-terms-non-monopolizability-in-trademark-law\/\">Publici Juris and Laudatory Terms: Non-Monopolisation in Trademark Law<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Introduction Trademark disputes in the alcoholic beverage industry frequently raise complex questions regarding brand identity, consumer perception, reputation, and the extent of protection available to registered trademarks. The decision in Devans Modern Breweries Limited v. Cartel Bros Private Limited &amp; Anr. is significant because it addresses whether a long-established trademark used primarily for beer can<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":56,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[5873],"tags":[5969],"class_list":["post-26604","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","category-trademark-law","tag-trademark-laws"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v27.9 (Yoast SEO v27.9) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-premium-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Registered Trademark Protection Despite Non-Use - Legal Service India - Articles<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Delhi High Court protects GODFATHER trademark, holding beer and whisky as allied goods in a landmark trademark infringement ruling.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/registered-trademark-protection-despite-non-use\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Registered Trademark Protection Despite Non-Use\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Delhi High Court protects GODFATHER trademark, holding beer and whisky as allied goods in a landmark trademark infringement ruling.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/registered-trademark-protection-despite-non-use\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Legal Service India - Articles\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/legalservicesind\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-07-04T05:28:26+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-07-04T05:33:23+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legalserviceind\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@legalserviceind\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/registered-trademark-protection-despite-non-use\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/registered-trademark-protection-despite-non-use\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/96ae33c2330691e5b3ccd88cf127a305\"},\"headline\":\"Registered Trademark Protection Despite Non-Use\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-04T05:28:26+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-07-04T05:33:23+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/registered-trademark-protection-despite-non-use\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1693,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"Trademark Laws\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Trademark Laws\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/registered-trademark-protection-despite-non-use\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/registered-trademark-protection-despite-non-use\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/registered-trademark-protection-despite-non-use\\\/\",\"name\":\"Registered Trademark Protection Despite Non-Use - Legal Service India - Articles\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-04T05:28:26+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-07-04T05:33:23+00:00\",\"description\":\"Delhi High Court protects GODFATHER trademark, holding beer and whisky as allied goods in a landmark trademark infringement ruling.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/registered-trademark-protection-despite-non-use\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/registered-trademark-protection-despite-non-use\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/registered-trademark-protection-despite-non-use\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Trademark Laws > Devans Modern Breweries Ltd. v. Cartel Bros: Delhi High Court Protects GODFATHER Trademark Across Beer & Whisky\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/\",\"name\":\"Legal Service India - Law Articles\",\"description\":\"Legal Service India - Law Article Directory is the oldest in India since 2000, with thousands of article written by lawyers, law Students and Scholars on all branches of law\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Legal Service India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/06\\\/logo-circle-1.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/06\\\/logo-circle-1.png\",\"width\":105,\"height\":95,\"caption\":\"Legal Service India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/legalservicesind\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legalserviceind\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.youtube.com\\\/@LegalServiceIndia-lsi\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/96ae33c2330691e5b3ccd88cf127a305\",\"name\":\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"\\\/\\\/www.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm\",\"url\":\"\\\/\\\/www.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm\",\"contentUrl\":\"\\\/\\\/www.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm\",\"caption\":\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\"},\"description\":\"Professional and Literary Profile Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Advocate, is an alumnus of the Campus Law Centre, University of Delhi, with over 20 years of experience in IP litigation before the Delhi High Court. He currently serves as a Patent and Trademark Attorney at United &amp; United, a leading intellectual property law firm. Deeply committed to legal scholarship, he has authored more than 900 articles on intellectual property law, published on major platforms including Legal Service India, Bar &amp; Bench, Live Law, SCC Online Blog, Legal Desire, SpicyIP, among others. Beyond his legal practice, he is also an accomplished writer and poet, with over 1,500 literary works and more than 20 books published in Hindi and English. His journey reflects a unique blend of legal advocacy and creative expression, inspired by a passion for justice, knowledge, and reform.\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/author\\\/ajayamitabhsuman\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Registered Trademark Protection Despite Non-Use - Legal Service India - Articles","description":"Delhi High Court protects GODFATHER trademark, holding beer and whisky as allied goods in a landmark trademark infringement ruling.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/registered-trademark-protection-despite-non-use\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Registered Trademark Protection Despite Non-Use","og_description":"Delhi High Court protects GODFATHER trademark, holding beer and whisky as allied goods in a landmark trademark infringement ruling.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/registered-trademark-protection-despite-non-use\/","og_site_name":"Legal Service India - Articles","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/legalservicesind","article_published_time":"2026-07-04T05:28:26+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-07-04T05:33:23+00:00","author":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legalserviceind","twitter_site":"@legalserviceind","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/registered-trademark-protection-despite-non-use\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/registered-trademark-protection-despite-non-use\/"},"author":{"name":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/person\/96ae33c2330691e5b3ccd88cf127a305"},"headline":"Registered Trademark Protection Despite Non-Use","datePublished":"2026-07-04T05:28:26+00:00","dateModified":"2026-07-04T05:33:23+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/registered-trademark-protection-despite-non-use\/"},"wordCount":1693,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#organization"},"keywords":["Trademark Laws"],"articleSection":["Trademark Laws"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/registered-trademark-protection-despite-non-use\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/registered-trademark-protection-despite-non-use\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/registered-trademark-protection-despite-non-use\/","name":"Registered Trademark Protection Despite Non-Use - Legal Service India - Articles","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-07-04T05:28:26+00:00","dateModified":"2026-07-04T05:33:23+00:00","description":"Delhi High Court protects GODFATHER trademark, holding beer and whisky as allied goods in a landmark trademark infringement ruling.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/registered-trademark-protection-despite-non-use\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/registered-trademark-protection-despite-non-use\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/registered-trademark-protection-despite-non-use\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Trademark Laws > Devans Modern Breweries Ltd. v. Cartel Bros: Delhi High Court Protects GODFATHER Trademark Across Beer & Whisky"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/","name":"Legal Service India - Law Articles","description":"Legal Service India - Law Article Directory is the oldest in India since 2000, with thousands of article written by lawyers, law Students and Scholars on all branches of law","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#organization","name":"Legal Service India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/logo-circle-1.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/logo-circle-1.png","width":105,"height":95,"caption":"Legal Service India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/legalservicesind","https:\/\/x.com\/legalserviceind","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@LegalServiceIndia-lsi"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/person\/96ae33c2330691e5b3ccd88cf127a305","name":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"\/\/www.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm","url":"\/\/www.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm","contentUrl":"\/\/www.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm","caption":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN"},"description":"Professional and Literary Profile Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Advocate, is an alumnus of the Campus Law Centre, University of Delhi, with over 20 years of experience in IP litigation before the Delhi High Court. He currently serves as a Patent and Trademark Attorney at United &amp; United, a leading intellectual property law firm. Deeply committed to legal scholarship, he has authored more than 900 articles on intellectual property law, published on major platforms including Legal Service India, Bar &amp; Bench, Live Law, SCC Online Blog, Legal Desire, SpicyIP, among others. Beyond his legal practice, he is also an accomplished writer and poet, with over 1,500 literary works and more than 20 books published in Hindi and English. His journey reflects a unique blend of legal advocacy and creative expression, inspired by a passion for justice, knowledge, and reform.","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/author\/ajayamitabhsuman\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26604","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/56"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=26604"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26604\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":27257,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26604\/revisions\/27257"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=26604"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=26604"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=26604"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}