The petitioner, Allied Blenders and Distillers Limited (ABDL), a prominent manufacturer of alcoholic beverages, sought the cancellation of respondent no. 1’s (Boutique Spirit Brands Private Limited) trademark registrations for ‘BSB MYRON’ in Classes 32 (non-alcoholic beverages) and 33 (alcoholic beverages) under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. ABDL contended that ‘MYRON’ was phonetically and visually similar to its prior-registered mark ‘KYRON’, creating a likelihood of consumer confusion in the identical trade channel.
ABDL’s case rested on its prior adoption and continuous use of ‘KYRON’ since 2010, with registrations dating back to 2012. The mark, derived from the Greek mythological figure “Chiron,” symbolised strength and had gained substantial goodwill through extensive sales and promotional expenditures. The petitioner highlighted awards such as the Superior Taste Award (2021) and the Monde Selection Award (2022) to underscore the mark’s reputation. In contrast, Boutique Spirit Brands registered ‘BSB MYRON’ in 2021 on a “proposed to be used” basis, with ABDL alleging that the respondent’s actual usage emphasised ‘MYRON’ disproportionately, rendering ‘BSB’ inconspicuous—a tactic indicative of dishonest adoption.
The court’s analysis focused on three key aspects: phonetic similarity, prior user rights, and likelihood of confusion. Relying on precedents like Lakme Limited vs Subhash Trading (1996) and Kia Wang vs Registrar of Trademarks (2023), the court emphasised that even minor differences in spelling (e.g., ‘KYRON’ vs ‘MYRON’) could deceive consumers when pronounced similarly, especially in markets where products are often ordered verbally. The court reiterated the “first in the market” principle, affirming that ABDL’s prior use (since 2012) superseded Boutique Spirit Brands’ subsequent registration (2021). The court noted the respondent’s failure to contest the suit or provide evidence of bona fide adoption, which strengthened inferences of mala fide intent.
The visual representation of ‘BSB MYRON’ in commerce was critical to the decision. The respondent’s product labels displayed ‘MYRON’ in a prominent font while minimising ‘BSB’, effectively mimicking ABDL’s standalone mark. This, coupled with identical trade channels (IMFL brandy) and consumer bases, heightened the risk of confusion. The court cited Heifer Project International vs Heifer Project India Trust (2024) to underscore how “triple identity” (similar marks, goods, and customers) invariably leads to deception.
The court ordered the cancellation of Boutique Spirit Brands’ registrations (Nos. 4544211–4544212) and directed the Registrar of Trademarks to expunge them while clarifying that the respondent could continue using ‘BSB’ independently. ABDL voluntarily waived costs, focusing on protecting its brand integrity. This judgment reinforces several trademark law tenets, such as phonetic similarity trumps visual differences in assessing deception; prior user rights prevail over registrations, especially where the latter lack bona fide use; dishonest adoption can be inferred from disproportionate emphasis on contested mark elements.