ORDER

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved by orders dated 26.10.2023 and 3.10.2023 passed by respondent No.1, whereby the label of respondent No.3 namely “VASCO 60000 EXTRA STRONG BEER” has been registered.

2. As per the petitioner, it is a manufacturer of beer and is having a brewery license B-3 and is having its manufacturing unit at Mhow, District Indore. Respondent No.2 issued a public notice on 24.5.2023 stating that respondent No.3 has applied for registration of label “VASCO 60000 EXTRA STRONG BEER”. Objections were invited to registration of the label. The petitioner submitted its objection on 25.5.2023 to the registration of label submitting that the same is extremely similar and based on artistic label of petitioner’s “MOUNT’S 6000 SUPER STRONG BEER” which is already registered with respondent No.1. It was submitted that respondent No.3 has dishonestly copied the entire label, numeral 6000, artistic features, background, style, colour scheme, get-up and meaning conveyed making the label highly similar to petitioner’s label. However, by order dated 3.10.2023, respondent No.1 has registered the label of respondent No.3.

3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since an objection had been raised by petitioner to registration of label of respondent No.3, the same could not have been registered. The label of respondent No.3 bears similarity and resemblance to the label of the petitioner. Respondent No.1 has failed to appreciate the same. Respondent No.3 has copied the entire label, numeral 6000, artistic features, background, style, colour scheme, get-up and the meaning conveyed. The finding as has been given by respondent No.1 that there is no deceptive similarity between the labels of petitioner and respondent No.3 is highly erroneous and illegal. Respondent No.3 had given an undertaking before the Delhi High Court for not using “VASCO 60000 super strong label” but has later on attempted to use the same, which is legally impermissible. It is hence submitted that the impugned order be quashed.

4. Per contra, learned senior counsel for respondent No.3 has submitted that from a bare perusal of the labels of the petitioner as well as respondent No.3, it is evident that there is no similarity between both of them. The colour scheme, words, style, combination and all the artistic features in both of them are entirely distinct in view of which there is no possibility for any consumer to be deceived. Respondent No.1 has duly considered the said aspect of the matter and has arrived at a cogent finding in which no interference is called for. Merely because an objection had been preferred by the petitioner, it cannot be said that the label of respondent No.3 could not at all have been registered. The undertaking which had been given by respondent No.3 before the Delhi High Court was in personam and not in rem and cannot be pressed into service by the petitioner in these proceedings. The impugned order has taken a cogent and plausible view which is not required to be interfered with in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Since there are various disputed question of facts required to be adjudicated upon, the remedy for the petitioner is to institute a civil suit before the competent Court under the provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. It is hence submitted that the petition deserves to be dismissed.

5. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 has also supported the impugned order and has more or less advanced the same arguments as advanced by respondent No.3.

6. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and have perused the record.

7. As per rule 9 (1) of M.P. Foreign Liquor rules, 1996, no foreign liquor shall be transported, imported, exported or sold within Madhya Pradesh unless the legends and details as stated therein are printed on the label pasted on the bottle. The proviso to Sub-