Liquor tetra packs comes under scanner; SC terms them 'dangerous', 'deceptive'

Liquor tetra packs comes under scanner; SC terms them 'dangerous', 'deceptive'

New Delhi, What is this a juice packet? Should liquor in tetra packs be permitted at all? the Supreme Court wondered on Monday, noting that such packaging was "dangerous" and deceiving, as it heard a trademark dispute between two liquor giants of the country.

Liquor tetra packs comes under scanner; SC terms them 'dangerous', 'deceptive'

After a counsel produced the tetra packs of both companies, pointing out the similarities in branding of their products, a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi expressed surprise that the government had allowed liquor to be sold in such packets and said it was a "serious issue".

The bench was hearing a trademark dispute between John Distilleries Pvt Ltd, which sells the product 'Original Choice' whisky, and Allied Blenders and Distilleries Pvt Ltd, which produces product 'Officers Choice' whisky.

The top court appointed former apex court judge L Nageswara Rao as mediator to settle the dispute amicably between both the liquor firms, which command a major share in the country's whisky market.

When senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for John Distilleries Pvt Ltd, produced the tetra packs of both the companies to the bench, Justice Kant said, "What is this packet? Juice."

Rohatgi said that these are tetra packs of whisky, which are one of the highest-selling products in Karnataka.

The bench said, "Should this at all be permitted. We think this is very dangerous. It can be taken to schools or colleges by the students in their bags. Parents can be easily deceived."

Justice Kant said this was the first time in his life he was seeing liquor in tetra packs and remarked, "How did the governments permit these kinds of packets. If someone files public interest litigation, we would like to examine."

Rohatgi and senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for Allied Blenders and Distilleries Pvt Ltd, said that there are other brands also in the market and governments are only interested in earning revenue from the sale of these products.

Justice Bagchi said the governments are trading on the health of the people.

"Just understand how much tons are wasted on health because of earning revenue... trading on the health of the people," Justice Bagchi said.

Rohatgi said, "This is how it is. Your lordships may look at this issue later, I have no difficulty."

The bench, while requesting Justice Rao to act as mediator, said that having regard to the nature of urgency involved, the mediator may take up the matter on a priority basis and make an endeavour to conclude a settlement process at the earliest.

At the outset, Rohatgi said two suits were filed by Allied Blenders, but the injunction was declined and pointed out that both companies have changed packaging over the years.

He said that he has no objection to a mutual settlement but urged the court to make it time-bound.

Justice Kant, while dictating the order in the matter, asked both the companies to consider the issue of tetra-packs in the larger public interest, saying "it's very serious".

The John Distilleries have challenged the November 7 order of the Madras High Court which had ruled in favour of Allied Blenders and directed the removal of its 'Original Choice' trademark from the register of trademarks.

The high court held that 'Original Choice' was deceptively similar to brand 'Officer's Choice' and that its registration violated the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

It had also confirmed that Allied Blenders' registration for 'Officer's Choice' remains valid.

Initially, the Allied Blenders filed a petition before the trademark registry for the removal of John Distilleries' "Original Choice" trademark, claiming it was phonetically and visually similar to its mark and likely to confuse consumers.

In turn, John Distilleries filed a cross-petition against Allied Blenders' "Officer's Choice" mark and alleged that Allied Blenders had suppressed facts when seeking registration and that its 1990 registration application was filed before it had obtained ownership of the mark.

In 2013, the Intellectual Property Appellate Board had dismissed both petitions, ruling that the marks were not deceptively similar.

Aggrieved by the IPAB order, both liquor giants then approached the Madras High Court, which in its November 7 order held the IPAB erred in its 2013 order.

This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.