The Blurred Lines Between Excise and Trademark Law

EXCISE LAWS VS TRADEMARK LAWS

The case of ‘Mount Everest Breweries Ltd. v. Excise Commissioner, MP has an interesting twist on the confluence of excise laws and trademark legislation. In the case at hand, the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that what powers to determine the similarity between beer labels can be exercised by the Excise Commissioner, a function generally reserved under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 to be executed by the Trade Marks Registry. Questions posed on August 27 create critically important questions in regards to the breadth of powers granted under state excise laws and, potentially, whether such powers can migrate into areas of intellectual property law domains generally governed exclusively.

The issue was two rival beers’ labels: VASCO 60000 EXTRA STRONG BEER approved by the Excise Commissioner and a commercially existing MOUNT 6000 SUPER STRONG BEAR whose registration had already been done. Aggrieved by the registering decision of the Commissioner of Excise, Mount Everest Breweries contended that he illegally registered the said VASCO label without deciding on its similarity with the appellant’s already existing label. Despite the MP Foreign Liquor Rules, 1996, and MP Beer and Wine Rules, 2002, which control label registration, no such permission is explicitly granted to the Excise Commissioner to decide whether or not there could be a likelihood of confusion or deceptive similarity between rival brands. Therefore, the judgment of the Court extends the rule of rule 9 to the extent that it mandates a search by the Commissioner only of a limited details amongst others like the content of the label, but not of its likeness to another mark.

JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION

Here, the test followed was that of deceptive similarity as found within the trademark law, with Section 2(h) of the Trade Marks Act and the leading judgment of Parle Products v. JP Mysore and Co being referred to. This approach tries to address whether ordinary consumers, with imperfect memory, may be misled by confusion between the two labels. In doing so, the Court seems to lay responsibility at the door of the Excise Commissioner to ensure beer labels do not work under a misleading similarity, despite the usual practice of such decisions being made by the Trade Marks Registry. This curious blending of excise and trademark responsibilities bodes ill for future adjudication of such matters.

Mount Everest
[Image Sources: Shutterstock]

The fact that there was a prior agreement between the parties before the Delhi High Court makes the decision all the more complicated. The respondent had agreed not to make use of the VASCO 60000 mark but had sought to get the registration of the label done before the Excise Commissioner. Yet while raising questions of good faith, the MP High Court had left the ground undetermined whether the order of the Delhi High Court was geographically limited or operative all over the country. And the matter is further complicated by murkiness over the agreement and unclear position as to whether label registration constitutes “use” of the mark.

This decision of the court is particularly significant because it attempts to tread on the ground which has traditionally been covered by specialist courts like IP courts of metropolitan cities like Delhi, Mumbai, and Chennai, which are better placed to deal with complexity in trademark disputes. The court blurred the distinction that had hitherto held between excise regulation and enforcement of trademark rights by allowing the Excise Commissioner holding authority under the excise law to determine whether labels resemble each other. The correct course would have been to refer the parties to carry an action of infringement or passing off under the Trade Marks Act, where further examination on similarities between the marks could be allowed, as well as providing expert opinion and evidence.

The division bench of the MP High Court simply ignored the recommendation made by the Single Judge at a previous stage, wherein it had ordered that the dispute be referred to a competent civil court for adjudication under trademark law. The division bench adopted a cursory approach which may well lead to setting mistaken precedents whereby bodies that are not specialized, such as the excise authorities, gain power over what are matters falling within IP law. This decision can have far-reaching implications; the interpretation of trademark law might be inconsistent in other jurisdictions where IP cases are relatively few.

CONCLUSION

It is in this sense that the case of the present judgment reflects the complexity at the junction of several areas of law. The decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh to call upon the Excise Commissioner to decide on similar labels or not, rather than referring the matter to the Trade Marks Registry or directing the parties to appropriate civil courts, creates uncertainties that upset the established process for dealing with trademark disputes. This shift underscores the requirement that hitherto vague demarcations regarding responsibilities between excise and IP authorities be made clear to prevent such legal ambiguities in the future.

Author: Khushboo Pachisia, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to chhavi@khuranaandkhurana.com or at  Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney.

Leave a Reply

Categories

Archives

  • November 2024
  • October 2024
  • September 2024
  • August 2024
  • July 2024
  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010