The high cost of brand name changes: a trademark and regulatory compliance lesson from Bira 91

In the world of business, a company’s name is not just an identifier—it is a critical trademark asset, a legal safeguard, and the foundation of brand equity. The recent rebranding challenges faced by B9 Beverages (parent company of Bira 91) illustrate how a seemingly minor name change can trigger costly legal, regulatory, and financial consequences when trademark and compliance risks are overlooked.

The hidden legal and financial risks of a name change

Bira 91’s decision to transition from “B9 Beverages Private Ltd” to “B9 Beverages Ltd” ahead of its 2026 IPO appeared to be a routine corporate update. However, under Indian law, a change in a company’s registered name requires re-registration of all product labels and trademarks—a complex and time-consuming process, particularly in the heavily regulated alcohol industry.

From a trademark law perspective, this rebranding had two major implications:

1. Loss of priority and brand continuity: The company’s existing trademarks (including labels, logos, and brand names) were tied to its old legal entity name. Any deviation requires fresh filings, risking loss of trademark priority and potential conflicts with competitors.
2. Regulatory Bottlenecks: Each state in India mandates separate approvals for alcohol labeling. Delays in re-registration led to lost sales, unsold inventory worth ₹80 crore, and a 22% drop in revenue (FY24).

Competitive and trademark vulnerabilities

Beyond financial losses, Bira 91 faced brand erosion in key markets (Delhi NCR, Andhra Pradesh), where competitors exploited the supply gap. This highlights another trademark risk: brand dilution due to market absence. When a company’s trademarks are in flux, competitors may strengthen their own marks, making it harder to reclaim market share.

Key trademark and compliance takeaways for businesses

Pre-change trademark audit

• Before altering a company name, conduct a full trademark review to assess re-registration requirements across jurisdictions.
• Ensure continuity by filing updated trademarks before the legal name change takes effect.

Proactive regulatory compliance

• Work with legal experts to preempt state-level labeling laws and stagger approvals to minimize disruptions.
• In regulated industries (alcohol, pharma, finance), even minor name tweaks can trigger full re-compliance.

Stakeholder and supply chain safeguards

• Maintain buffer inventory to prevent stock-outs during re-approval periods.
• Notify distributors, retailers, and IP offices early to prevent counterfeiters from exploiting gaps.

Competitive monitoring

• Track trademark filings by rivals during transitions to prevent infringement or squatting.
• Consider opposition proceedings if competitors attempt similar marks.

Rebuilding after a rebranding misstep

Bira 91 has since stabilized, reporting growth in late FY24 and targeting profitability soon. However, the episode underscores a fundamental lesson: a company’s name is a legal asset as much as a marketing one.

Failing to align trademark strategy with corporate changes can lead to massive write-offs, lost market position, and eroded brand value. Businesses must treat name changes with the same caution as mergers or IP litigation, because the financial and legal stakes are just as high.

Conclusion: trademark strategy = risk mitigation

In an era where brand identity is legally enforceable equity, companies must integrate trademark due diligence into every corporate decision. Whether preparing for an IPO, expanding globally, or simply modernizing a brand, proactive trademark management is non-negotiable—unless businesses are willing to pay millions for the oversight.

For Bira 91, the cost was ₹748 crore in losses. For others, it could be even higher. The lesson? Change your name carefully—or risk your trademark, your sales, and your future.

← Back to News