Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Jyoti Mulimani, J.
John Distilleries Pvt. Ltd – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner Of Excise, 2nd Floor Bmtc Building, A Block, Bmtc Shantinagar, Government Of Karnataka, Bengaluru ? 560027 & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 5168 of 2022 (EXCISE)
Decided On : 12-05-2022
Trademark - Approval of Label - Karnataka Excise (Bottling of Liquor) Rules, 1967 - [Rule 15 (3)] - The court discussed the breach of rules/principles of natural justice, the jurisdiction of the Excise Commissioner, and the infringement of trademark. The court held that the Excise Commissioner considered the written objections and did not breach the rules of natural justice. The court refused to examine the details of the alleged trademark infringement as it was outside the purview of article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a company engaged in the business of alcoholic beverages, challenged the approval of the second respondent's label, 'Green Choice Superior Whisky', alleging breach of rules/principles of natural justice and infringement of trademark.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Excise Commissioner did not breach the rules of natural justice and refused to examine the details of the alleged trademark infringement as it was outside the purview of article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Issues: Breach of rules/principles of natural justice, jurisdiction of the Excise Commissioner, infringement of trademark
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Excise Commissioner considered the written objections and did not breach the rules of natural justice. The court refused to examine the details of the alleged trademark infringement as it was outside the purview of article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the interim order was discharged.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
Jyoti Mulimani, J. - Sri. Dhananjay Joshi learned Senior Counsel for petitioner and Sreevatsa, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.2 and Smt.Shwetha Krishnappa, learned Government advocate Respondent No.1 have appeared in person.
2. The material facts of this writ petition can be stated quite shortly as under:
It is stated that the petitioner is a reputed company engaged in a business of manufacture, sale, supply and export of alcoholic beverages under various brand names and one of the flagship brands of the petitioner is 'Original Choice'. The brand original choice is a registered trade mark of the petitioner along with several other registered trademarks containing unique designs and graphical representations.
It is said that petitioner has been making improvisation in the packing and labelling of the brand over the years to make it more appealing. One such innovation in the labelling under aseptic Brick Pack was approved by the office of the Commissioner of Excise, Bengaluru supplied through KSBCL in the State of Karnataka.
The Commissioner of Excise, Bengaluru published a notification on 22.10.2021 bearing NO.EDC/08/DST/ KOLaR/LaBEL/2020-21 announcing that the second respondent had applied for approval of its label under the brand names, 'Green Choice Superior Whisky' and 'Black Queen Gold Whiskey' and calling up on other Distilleries to submit their objections. if any to these brand names and label within 21 days of the notification.
Noticing that the marks adopted by the second respondent in its label were deceptively similar to the petitioner's registered trademarks, the petitioner submitted detailed objections to the Commissioner of Excise- first respondent.
as things stood thus, on 29.11.2021 the Commissioner of Excise- first respondent addressed a letter to the Deputy Commissioner Kolar, directing him to investigate the objections filed in response to the notification and submit a report on or before 06.12.2021.
It is stated that on 04.01.2022, petitioner addressed a letter to the Commissioner of Excise specifically requesting for a personal hearing. However, without granting an opportunity for hearing, the Commissioner of Excise passed the order on 14.01.2022 thereby approved the second respondent's label.
Under these circumstances, the petitioner having left with no other of alternative and efficacious remedy has filed this writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. Sri. Dhananjay Joshi learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that the order is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law.
Next, he submitted that the order has been passed in breach of rules /principles of natural justice.
a further submission is made that the Commissioner of Excise has no adjudicatory powers under rule 15 (3) of the Karnataka Excise (Bottling of Liquor) Rules, 1967 (for short Rules 1967) to approve any label. It is submitted that the same was brought to the notice of the Commissioner that the proposed label is in violation of petitioner's intellectual property rights. Hence, the Commissioner ought to have directed the second respondent to address and resolve the petitioner's objections before seeking approval of its label.
Learned Senior Counsel vehemently contended that the Commissioner has failed to appreciate that the petitioner has a right to be heard and more so, when the petitioner has made a specific request in that regard.
It is urged that the trademark 'Green Choice' does not even belong to the second respondent. It is argued that one SNJ Distillers Private Limited has applied for registration of its trademark under the Trademarks act, 1999, which application is being opposed by the petitioner. Moreover, the graphical designs in the petitioner's registered trademarks which are being copied by the second respondent are not even the subject matter of the application for registration of the trademark, Green Choice. The Commissioner has failed to appreciate that the second respond
The court emphasized the importance of considering written objections and ruled that the examination of alleged trademark infringement was outside the purview of article 226 of the Constitution of In....
The State Government holds the authority to regulate excise shop locations and close them without notice if due procedure was followed.
Administrative orders must provide clear reasoning and specify durations to comply with natural justice principles, ensuring transparency and fairness.
The cancellation of a license under the Odisha Excise Act, 2008 without providing reasonable notice or opportunity to be heard violates the principles of natural justice, rendering the order invalid.
The court established that any administrative action affecting rights must comply with the principles of natural justice, including the right to a fair hearing.
Suspension of a bar licence without disclosing relevant materials and failing to specify a duration violates principles of natural justice, rendering the order unsustainable.
Procedural lapses in the constitution of inspection teams under the Himachal Pradesh Excise Act invalidate administrative actions, emphasizing the necessity for adherence to established legal framewo....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
