ORDER

Rusia, J:-- 1. The appellant/petitioner has filed this writ appeal challenging the order dated 12.8.2024, whereby the Writ Petition No.31110 of 2023 has been dismissed with the liberty to institute a civil suit.

2. Facts of the case in short are as under:

2.1. The writ petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act having its registered office at 4th Floor, BPK Star Tower, A.B. Road, Indore and its manufacturing unit at Sirmaur, Mhau. The petitioner has a B-3 license for manufacturing foreign liquor. Petitioner is manufacturing “MOUNT 6000 SUPER STRONG BEAR” which is already registered with respondent No.1 under rule 12 of Madhya Pradesh Bear and Wine Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules, 2002”) and rule 9 of Madhya Pradesh Foreign Liquor rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred as rules, 1996”). Respondent No.3 is also a company registered under the Companies Act engaged in the manufacturing of beer and wines. Respondent No.3 applied before respondent No.2 for registration of the label, the respondent No.2 issued a public notice dated 24.5.2023 inviting objections in respect of registration of label “BOLD SUPER STRONG BEAR” AND “VASCO 60000 EXTRA STRONG BEAR”.

2.2. The petitioner submitted an objection that the label sought to be registered by respondent No.3 is similar and based on the artistic label of the petitioner brand i.e. “MOUNT 6000 SUPER STRONG BEAR”. According to the petitioner, respondent No.3 has dishonestly copied the entire label, numeral 6000 artistic features, background, style, colour, and scheme, and got up to deceive the consumer and public. Respondent No.2 vide order dated 12.12.2023 has registered the label of “VASCO 60000 EXTRA STRONG BEAR” of respondent No.3. The petitioner submitted an objection and thereafter, filed the writ petition before this Court.

2.3. After issuance of the notice, respondents Nos.1 and 2 filed the reply that there is no similarity and resemblance between the registered trademark/label of the petitioner as well as respondent No.3 which was registered by respondent No.1. The Commissioner has considered the objection raised by the petitioner and rejected the same by a reasoned order. The registration of the label is only for the purpose of purchasing and selling products like wine and beer manufactured in Madhya Pradesh, the registration of the label includes various other details and legends of the product in which the brand is one of them. It is further submitted that the dispute between the parties in respect of the infringement of the trademark and copyright is liable to be decided by the competent civil Court. Hence, the petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

2.4. Respondent No.3 also filed the reply contending that there is no similarity or resemblance with the label of the petitioner. The colour scheme, label, font, and design of the logo are altogether different, therefore, there cannot be any deceptive similarity between the two labels. The answering respondent is manufacturing bear in a label of “VASCO and VASCO 60000” since 2017 as a bonafide registered license holder. The Commissioner has considered the objection submitted by the petitioner and rightly rejected the same hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

2.5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Writ Court has dismissed the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to institute a civil suit hence, this writ appeal before this Court.

3. Shri Piyush Mathur, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Excise Commissioner has failed to discharge its duty under rule 9 of Rules, 1996, the rule specifically prohibits registration of new labels that no such label shall be registered which bear the similarity or resemblance to any prevalent label of any other manufactory. The learned Commissioner has failed to appreciate that the petitioner?s label has already been prevalent and registered since last so many years, therefore, the applicat