In a dispute concerning reuse of beer bottles, Mount Everest Breweries Ltd. (“Appellant”) appealed against an order (“Impugned Order”) passed in the favour of MP Beer Products Ltd. (“Respondent”).
Background of the case
The Appellant manufactured and sold beer under the trademark “STOCK”. The glass bottles used by the appellant were affixed with labels and embossed with its trademark “STOCK” and “panda device” (“Appellant’s Marks”). The respondent who was also in the same business, reused the Appellant’s beer bottles by changing the label and in some instances scratching the embossed trademark and device mark.
Aggrieved by the respondent’s actions, the Appellant first approached the Commissioner of Excise, Madhya Pradesh (“EC”). The EC passed an order prohibiting all beer bottling units from reusing old glass bottles that carry an embossment on them.
The respondent in turn filed a Writ Petition before the Maharashtra High Court (“Court”) on the grounds that the EC’s order was non-reasoned and cryptic. The Single Judge of the Court passed the Impugned Order quashing EC’s order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.
The Appellants preferred the instant appeal before Division Bench of the Court, challenging the Impugned Order.
Fig. 1: Appellant’s beer bottle
Fig. 2: Respondent’s reused and relabelled beer bottle
Appelant’s submissions
The Appellant contented that reuse of beer bottles violated the Excise Act and the Madhya Pradesh Beer and Wine Rules, 2000. Even if the Respondent removed the label of Appellants, the bottles possessed the embossing of Appellant’s Marks. As such, the Appellants argued that the reused bottle clearly infringed its intellectual property rights.
Respondent’s Submissions
The Respondent raised the following five grounds:
(i) that they are selling goods under labels approved from excise department and following common industrial practices;
(ii) there is lack of executive or legislative sanction behind the order passed by the Commissioner of Excise;
(iii) Violation of article 19(1)(g) and Article 301 of the Constitution of India;
(iv) Logistical impossibility and financial hardship to be caused due to implementation of the order dated 07.11.2020; and
(v) Danger to Environmental protection and sustainability.
Court’s Analysis
Upon careful interpretation of Madhya Pradesh Foreign Liquor Rules, 1996, Madhya Pradesh Beer and Wine Rules, 2000, and Trade Marks Act 1999, the Court held that the respondent’s re-use of the bottles contravenes the law. Since the Appellant’s Marks are prominently visible on the reused beer bottles, such bottles contain not one but two brands, causing deception among the public.
The Court found no merit in the five grounds raised by the respondents and reasoned that the EC is empowered to approve or reject labels, therefore, he has legislative sanction to pass a prohibitory order.
Conclusion
Based on the above analysis, the Court allowed the appeals and upheld the EC’s order. The issues relating to trademark and design infringement were left open.
Citation : Mount Everest Breweries Ltd. v. Regent Beers & Wines Ltd., W.A. No. 683/2024 (Madhya Pradesh High Court, 12th November,2024). Available at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/46119181/
Authored by Ms. Charishma, Associate, Innovation, Consulting & Strategy, BananaIP Counsels
Disclaimer
The case note/s in this blog post have been written by IP Attorneys at BananaIP Counsels based on their review and understanding of the Judgments. It may be noted that other IP attorneys and experts in the field may have different opinions about the cases or arrive at different conclusions therefrom. It is advisable to read the Judgments before making any decisions based on the case notes.
If you have any questions, or if you wish to speak with an IP expert/attorney, please reach us at: contact@bananaip.com or 91-80-26860414/24/34.
