Introduction:
The case at hand involves Mount Everest Breweries Limited (the petitioner) versus the Excise Commissioner of Madhya Pradesh and others, including Respondent No. 3, who is a company engaged in the manufacturing of beer and wines. The dispute revolves around the registration of a beer label by Respondent No. 3, which the petitioner claims is deceptively similar to its own registered label for "MOUNT 6000 SUPER STRONG BEER."
Background:
Mount Everest Breweries Limited, with its manufacturing unit in Sirmaur, Mhau, and a registered office in Indore, holds a B-3 license for manufacturing foreign liquor. The company produces "MOUNT 6000 SUPER STRONG BEER" and has a registered label for this product. Respondent No. 3, another company registered under the Companies Act, applied for the registration of the label "VASCO 60000 EXTRA STRONG BEER" before the Excise Commissioner of Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner objected to this application, claiming that the label sought by Respondent No. 3 was deceptively similar to its own, and that this would likely cause confusion among consumers. Despite the objection, the Excise Commissioner registered Respondent No. 3's label, prompting the petitioner to file a writ petition challenging the decision.
Relevant Provisions of Law Applicable:
The case is governed by the Trade Marks Act, 1999, particularly Section 2(h) which defines a deceptively similar mark as one that closely resembles another mark, likely to deceive or cause confusion. Additionally, the Madhya Pradesh Bear and Wine Rules, 2002, and the Madhya Pradesh Foreign Liquor Rules, 1996, provide the regulatory framework for the registration of labels for alcoholic beverages in the state of Madhya Pradesh. Rule 9 of the Foreign Liquor Rules, 1996, requires the Excise Commissioner to ensure that no new labels registered bear similarity or resemblance to any prevalent label of another manufactory.
Issue of the Case:
The central issue is whether the label "VASCO 60000 EXTRA STRONG BEER" registered by Respondent No. 3 is deceptively similar to the petitioner's "MOUNT 6000 SUPER STRONG BEER," thereby infringing the petitioner's trademark and potentially causing confusion among consumers.
Reason of Court:
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore, found that the labels in question were indeed similar, with the red color background, black strip, and unique color combination of golden, red, and brown, as well as the prominent use of the numeral "60000," being identical. The court reasoned that these similarities were likely to mislead consumers into believing that the products were from the same source. The court also noted that Respondent No. 3 had previously given an undertaking not to use the impugned mark "VASCO 60000," which they later violated by applying for registration with minor changes.
Final Decision:
The High Court allowed the writ appeal, setting aside the orders of the Excise Commissioner and the previous writ petition that had dismissed the petitioner's claim. The court directed Respondent No. 3 to apply afresh for the registration of a new label that does not infringe on the petitioner's trademark. The court's decision underscores the importance of maintaining distinctiveness in branding to avoid consumer confusion and upholds the petitioner's rights under trademark law.
Case Citation: Mount Everest Breweries Limited Vs Excise Commissioner Madhya Pradesh: 27.08.2024: WRIT APPEAL No. 1852 of 2024: WA-1852-2024: Madhya Pradesh High Court: VIVEK RUSIA and BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI, H.J.
Written by: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman
IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney] United & United
Disclaimer:
The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
