Battle of the bottles: Mount Everest Breweries v. Regent Beers & Wines

Does reusing embossed bottles with another manufacturer’s trademark constitute the infringement of intellectual property rights under the Trademarks Act? In a recent case, this issue was assessed.

Mount Everest Breweries Limited (appellant) manufactures and sells beer under the trademark STOK, which is embossed on glass beer bottles along with a “panda device.” The appellant discovered that Regent Beers & Wines Limited (respondents), who also sell beer, were reusing its embossed beer bottles to market their own beer. The appellant asserted that this not only infringed on its trademark rights but also led to consumer deception by associating Beers & Wines products with the established STOK brand.

The Excise Commissioner issued an order prohibiting all beer and liquor bottling units from reusing embossed bottles. The matter then came up for judicial scrutiny, marking a significant judicial intervention in the realm of trademark protection and regulatory compliance within the beer industry.

Rival contentions

The appellant contended that the reuse of embossed beer bottles by the respondents infringed its intellectual property rights. The respondents contended that reusing empty beer bottles is an industry norm, with bottles being legally procured from scrap dealers, and that the Excise Commissioner lacked authority to enforce trademark protections.

Summary of the judgment

The judge quashed the Excise Commissioner’s order, stating that it lacked sufficient reasoning. Upon appeal, the High Court overturned this decision, upholding the prohibition on reusing bottles with the appellant’s embossed trademarks. The court opined that while recycling is permissible, it cannot infringe intellectual property rights or violate statutory provisions. The court noted that the Excise Commissioner did not prohibit the reuse of beer bottles, they only directed that the bottles with embossed logo or brand cannot be used. The court opined that the impugned Excise Commissioner clearly fell within the ambit of reasonable restriction. The court held that there is also no violation of Article 19(1)(g) and Article 301 of the Constitution of India as alleged by the respondent, as there is no prohibition on the respondents from conducting their business. The court upheld the Excise Commissioner’s authority to enforce the rules under the MP Foreign Liquor Rules, which empowers the Excise Commissioner to prevent label misuse and avoid brand confusion.

While the court supported the Excise Commissioner’s stance on maintaining brand integrity and preventing trademark infringement, it did not address the issue regarding the prohibition on reusing bottles after the removal or scratching of the original embossments.

Precedents cited

The judgment did not cite specific judicial precedents because there were none. It primarily relied on statutory provisions, including the Trademarks Act, 1999, Madhya Pradesh Beer and Wine Rules, 2000, and Madhya Pradesh Foreign Liquor Rules, 1996 (the latter regulates the import, export, and sale of foreign liquor, including stringent labeling requirements).

Legal reasoning

The court’s reasoning centers on several legal principles:

• Trademark protection: Reusing bottles with the original brand’s embossed trademark infringes the intellectual property rights of Mount Everest Breweries. Even if the external labels are replaced, the persistent embossment causes consumer confusion and dilutes brand integrity.
• Regulatory compliance: The Excise Commissioner is empowered under the MP Beer and Wine Rules to regulate labeling practices to prevent deceptive marketing. The order enforcing the prohibition aligns with these regulatory provisions.
• Public interest and consumer protection: Ensuring that consumers are not misled about the origin of the products is paramount. The reuse of branded bottles without proper authorization compromises consumer trust and market fairness.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the enforcement of intellectual property rights within the regulated alcohol industry. Future cases involving trademark infringements and regulatory compliance are likely to reference this decision, promoting stricter adherence to labeling and branding norms. Additionally, the case sets a precedent for the legal community and industry players on the importance of maintaining its brand.

The High Court’s decision underscores the critical role of regulatory frameworks in safeguarding intellectual property within the alcohol industry. By upholding the prohibition against reusing branded bottles, the court affirmed the necessity of protecting trademarks to prevent consumer deception and maintain market integrity. It also highlights the role of the judiciary in upholding intellectual property rights against unauthorized commercial practices, thereby fostering a fair and transparent marketplace.

← Back to News