Godfrey Phillips India v. Girnar Food & Beverages — "Super Cup" Trademark Case

Citation & Court

Godfrey Phillips India Ltd. v. Girnar Food & Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 8557 of 1997, Supreme Court of India, decided 5 December 1997.

The Dispute

Godfrey Phillips sold tea under the umbrella mark "Tea City" and, since 1987-88, an extra-strong CTC tea under the specific mark "SUPER CUP," claiming substantial advertising spend and goodwill in that mark. Girnar Food & Beverages began using the same words, "SUPER CUP," on its own tea. A single judge of the Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction against Girnar, but a Division Bench set that injunction aside — holding that "SUPER" (a laudatory epithet) and "CUP" (descriptive of a cup of tea) together formed a purely descriptive expression, not entitled to any protection.

What the Court Held

The Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench's order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration after hearing both sides, directing that the status quo on use of "Super Cup" be maintained in the meantime. In doing so, the Court declined to accept the proposition that a mark made up of a laudatory word and a descriptive word is automatically unprotectable — the question of whether such a combination has, on the evidence, become distinctive of one trader's goods still had to be examined properly rather than decided on the words alone.

How to Use This in Your Reply

Cite this when an examiner or opposing counsel argues that a mark is unregistrable simply because it can be broken into two ordinary, non-distinctive words. The correct approach — which this case supports — is to assess the combination as a whole and on the evidence of use, not to dismiss it on a word-by-word reading. It pairs well with evidence of continuous, prominent use and advertising spend specific to the combined mark.

Key takeaway: A descriptive-plus-laudatory combination is not refused as a matter of law — it still needs a proper evidentiary hearing.