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 predecessors has been brewing, bottling, marketing and selling beer across India under the trade mark 'THUNDERBOLT/BOLT' registered under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The petitioner is claiming the acquisition of tremendous goodwill and reputation amongst the consumers at large due to the quality of the beer. Therefore, the petitioner is claiming the exclusive right to object to any unauthorized use of trade mark 'THUNDERBOLT/BOLT'. The petitioner is also selling different types of liquors in the name of 'THUNDERBOLT/BOLT', 'THUNDERBOLT SUPER STRONG BEER', 'THUNDERBOLT AQUA' & 'THUNDERBOLT PREMIUM STRONG BEER'.

5. Respondent No.1 is the Excise Commissioner of the Department of Excise (M.P.), a competent authority under Madhya Pradesh Foreign Liquor Rules, 1996 & M.P. Beer & Wine Rules for registration of labels for the purpose of manufacture, transportation, sale, export and import of beer and wine in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The Beer Manufacturing Unit in Madhya Pradesh is mandatorily required registration of its label/trade mark of beer by respondent No.1 under Rule 12 of M.P. Beer & Wine Rules, in which the provisions of M.P. Foreign Liquor Rules have been made applicable mutatis mutandis.

6. Respondent No.3 applied for registration of a label in the name of 'BOLT SUPER STRONG BEER' before respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 issued a public notice dated 24.05.2023 through the website of M.P. Excise Department inviting objections in respect of registration of the aforesaid label.

7. The petitioner submitted an objection in respect of its label and style of 'THUDERBOLT SHINE' claiming to be a similar registered trade mark of the petitioner.

8. Vide the impugned order dated 03.10.2023, the Excise Commissioner turned down the objection and registered a label 'BOLT SUPER STRONG BEER' in favour of respondent No.3. Hence, the present petition is before this Court.

9. Shri Piyush Mathur, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that sub-rule (4) of Rule 9 of M.P. Foreign Liquor Rules says that on receipt of an application for registration of label/labels, the Excise Commissioner conducts an enquiry and if he is satisfied that the pre-requisites specified in sub-rule (3) have been complied with and there is no objection to such registration, he may register it. If the objection is submitted like in the present case, and the Commissioner finds that label/labels under registration bear similarity or resemblances to any prevalent label of any other manufactory then he shall refuse to register the same. The Excise Commissioner failed to examine the registered trade mark of the petitioner, in which the predominant word is 'BOLT' with a lightening shine, respondent No.3 has no right to use the word 'BOLT' with the same lightening shine within the letter 'O'. Therefore, it is having similarity and resemblance with the trade mark/label of the petitioner for its product of beer having goodwill in the market. The matter is liable to be remanded back to the Excise Commissioner to conduct a fresh enq