[Mount's 6000 v. Vasco 60000] Mere 'Objection' No Ground For Excise Commissioner To Deny Registration Under Foreign Liquor Rules: MP High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently dismissed a writ petition filed by Mount Everest Breweries Limited challenging registration of the label “VASCO 60000 EXTRA STRONG BEER” by the Excise Commissioner of Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner had alleged that the impugned label of Vasco Breweries, respondent No. 3, bore a deceptive similarity to its own registered label “MOUNT'S 6000 SUPER...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently dismissed a writ petition filed by Mount Everest Breweries Limited challenging registration of the label “VASCO 60000 EXTRA STRONG BEER” by the Excise Commissioner of Madhya Pradesh.
The petitioner had alleged that the impugned label of Vasco Breweries, respondent No. 3, bore a deceptive similarity to its own registered label “MOUNT'S 6000 SUPER STRONG BEER.”
Justice Pranay Verma said though Rule 9(4) of the MP Foreign Liquor Rules 1996, prescribes a label may be registered if there is no objection to such registration, such stipulation cannot be stretched to mean that if any objection is made by a third party then merely for the fact of such objection having been made, the label cannot be registered.
It held,
"The words 'and there is no objection to such registration' cannot be read in isolation and have to be read along with the entire rule which provides that the Excise Commissioner may make an enquiry and if he is satisfied that the pre-requisites for registration have been complied with he may register it. The additional condition is that if there is no objection to the same. Objection as occurring in this rule has to be necessarily construed to be a legal objection in the mind of the Excise Commissioner to registration of the label and not an objection to registration submitted by a third party.”
Petitioner contended that the impugned label was highly similar to its own label in terms of numeral usage, artistic features, background, style, color scheme, and overall get-up. The petitioner argued that such similarity was likely to deceive consumers and the impugned label should not have been registered, especially since the respondent had previously undertaken before the Delhi High Court not to use a similar label.
In contrast, the respondents argued that the labels of the two products were distinct and that there was no likelihood of consumer deception. They contended that the difference in numerals and wordings—specifically, “6000” versus “60000”—was significant enough to differentiate the two products. The respondents further asserted that the undertaking given by Vasco Breweries before the Delhi High Court was in personam (applicable only to the parties in that particular case) and could not be extended to the present proceedings in Madhya Pradesh.
The Court noted that the dispute involved several complex factual issues, including the similarity of the labels, which were better suited for adjudication in a civil suit under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
It also addressed the undertaking provided by respondent No. 3 in the Delhi High Court, noting that it was given without prejudice and exclusively for settling the specific civil suit pending in that court. Justice Verma emphasized that this undertaking could not preclude respondent No. 3 from seeking label registration in the current proceedings, as it was not an unqualified undertaking and was intended solely for the purpose of resolving the earlier dispute.
As such, the court dismissed the writ petition while granting the petitioner the liberty to pursue its grievances in a civil suit, if so desired.
Case title: Mount Everest Breweries Limited Through Its Director Shri Ranjan Tibrewal Versus Excise Commissioner Madhya Pradesh And Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 191
Case No: WRIT PETITION No. 31110 of 2023