Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Right to Promotion is Legitimate Expectation; Marriage-Based Transfer Can't Defeat It: Himachal Pradesh High Court
12 Mar 2026
Section 4 Official Secrets Act Presumption and Prima Facie Evidence Bar Bail in Espionage Case: Punjab & Haryana HC
14 Mar 2026
Centre Revokes Wangchuk's NSA Detention Amid SC Challenge
14 Mar 2026
No Interference Allowed in Religious Prayers on Private Premises: Allahabad HC Cites Maranatha Precedent
14 Mar 2026
No Proof of Absolute Ownership by Mizo Chiefs Bars Fundamental Rights Claim Under Article 31: Supreme Court
14 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
VIVEK RUSIA
Inbrew Beverages Private Limited Through Its Authorised Signatory Ms Ruchi Negi – Appellant
Versus
Excise Commissioner Madhya Pradesh Composite Revenue – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
ORDER :
The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking quashment of the order dated 03.10.2023 passed by the Excise Commissioner under Rule 12 of the Madhya Pradesh Beer & Wine Rules made under Section 62 of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915.
2. The petitioner is a private limited company having its registered office at Nehru Place, South Delhi, New Delhi and is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of beer in the name of 'THUNDERBOLT/BOLT' (registered trademark). Initially, Mount Shivalik Breweries Limited was incorporated on 31.10.1972, thereafter, it was changed to Molson Coors India Private Limited and now it is known as Inbrew Beverages Private Limited.
3. Respondent No.3/Regent Beers & Wine Limited is also a private limited company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling beer from its manufactury in Maksi, District – Shajapur.
4. The petitioner, through its pre
The scope of Rule 122(c) of the West Bengal Excise (Foreign Liquor) Rules, 1998, in the context of granting registration for the manufacture and sale of foreign liquor under a particular brand name o....
The court established that overall similarity in trade dress can lead to consumer confusion, warranting an injunction against the use of a similar label.
Registered trademark owners are entitled to prevent unauthorized use that is likely to confuse consumers, establishing a right to seek injunction and damages for infringement and passing off.
The absence of importer information on a carbonated drink label does not amount to misbranding under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, especially where a valid trade agreement between In....
The Court ruled that the Plaintiff's registered marks were infringed by the Defendant's use of a similar mark, establishing likelihood of confusion and passing off under trade mark law.
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
Listen Article