Bombay HC bars ABD from launching products under ‘Mansion House', ‘Savoy Club' trademarks
Bombay High Court
has restrained
Allied Blenders and Distillers
(ABD) from introducing or selling its products under the trademarks 'MANSION HOUSE' and 'SAVOY CLUB' in India until a final decision is made in an ongoing
trademark dispute
.
The Division Bench of the High Court, in its order dated July 16, 2025, allowed appeals filed by
Tilaknagar Industries Limited
(TIL) that challenged an earlier ruling permitting ABD to introduce products under the 'MANSION HOUSE' label in West Bengal.
Explore courses from Top Institutes in
Select a Course Category
Degree
MBA
Healthcare
Leadership
Digital Marketing
healthcare
PGDM
Management
Project Management
Design Thinking
Data Science
Cybersecurity
Data Analytics
Operations Management
MCA
Technology
Product Management
Public Policy
Data Science
CXO
Artificial Intelligence
Others
others
Finance
Skills you'll gain:
Data-Driven Decision-Making
Strategic Leadership and Transformation
Global Business Acumen
Comprehensive Business Expertise
Duration:
2 Years
University of Western Australia
UWA Global MBA
Starts on
Jun 28, 2024
Get Details
That earlier order, dated February 7, 2025, had been based on label registration secured by ABD from the
West Bengal State Excise Department
.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Villas For Sale in Dubai Might Surprise You
Villas In Dubai | Search Ads
Get Quote
Undo
With the latest ruling, the court has effectively reinstated a restriction on ABD, directing it to maintain the current status of non-introduction of products under both disputed marks—"MANSION HOUSE" and "SAVOY CLUB"—across India until the original commercial
intellectual property suit
(filed in 2009) is concluded.
In addition to upholding TIL's appeals, the high court also dismissed an earlier appeal (No. 66 of 2012) filed by ABD in a related motion within the same suit.
Live Events
ABD has stated that it is considering a legal challenge to the July 16 order.
The disclosure was made in compliance with SEBI's Listing Regulation 30 and associated circulars, the company informed the exchanges on Thursday.
A long-standing legal dispute
In February 2025, the Bombay High Court had allowed Allied Blenders & Distillers (ABD) and Dutch distiller Herman Jansen Beverages (formerly UTO) to launch Mansion House brandy and Savoy Club gin in India, ending a 17-year legal battle with
Tilaknagar Industries
(TIL).
TIL, which markets Mansion House brandy in India, had sought the court's intervention to restrain ABD, Herman Jansen Beverages Nederland, and UTO Asia from manufacturing, marketing, or selling alcoholic products under the trademarks Mansion House and Savoy Club.
Justice Riyaz Chagla had dismissed TIL's application, observing there was "no apparent similarity" between ABD's label and TIL's mark, and noting ABD's products would compete in a different, high-end segment.
The judge gave TIL four weeks to challenge the order before it took effect. Following the ruling, Tilaknagar Industries' stock hit the lower limit of 20%, closing at ₹293.4 on the BSE.
TIL filed an appeal against this order before the division bench of the High Court. ABD had sought permission to initially launch Mansion House brandy and Savoy Club gin in West Bengal.
The roots of the dispute go back to 1987, when TIL signed an agreement with UTO (Herman Jansen) granting it ownership rights of Mansion House brandy and Savoy Club gin in India. However, the Dutch company argued the agreement was never legally finalized and filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against TIL in 2008.
In December 2011, a single-judge bench of the Bombay High Court ruled that TIL held rights to Mansion House in India, but this was appealed by Herman Jansen.
In 2014, ABD acquired 50% ownership rights to Mansion House and Savoy Club from Herman Jansen, gaining the rights to produce and sell these brands in India.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
12 hours ago
- Time of India
What did SC tell the 'qualified IT professional' who wanted crores in alimony after just 1.5 years of marriage?
In a strong message that may well set a precedent, the Supreme Court of India has drawn a sharp line between legitimate maintenance and unreasonable demands, especially in short-lived marriages. The apex court recently heard a high-profile alimony case where a woman demanded Rs 12 crore, a BMW car, and a luxury apartment in Mumbai, after just 18 months of marriage. The Court's response was firm: "You're educated, earn yourself." Explore courses from Top Institutes in Please select course: Select a Course Category Finance Operations Management CXO Public Policy others Others Data Science Healthcare Data Analytics Data Science Degree Digital Marketing MBA Cybersecurity Leadership Design Thinking Project Management Technology MCA Management PGDM Artificial Intelligence healthcare Product Management Skills you'll gain: Duration: 9 Months IIM Calcutta SEPO - IIMC CFO India Starts on undefined Get Details Skills you'll gain: Duration: 7 Months S P Jain Institute of Management and Research CERT-SPJIMR Fintech & Blockchain India Starts on undefined Get Details As reported by Bar and Bench, the woman, a qualified IT professional with an MBA degree, had sought extravagant interim maintenance from her estranged husband, who she claimed was wealthy and had filed for annulment citing mental health issues, including schizophrenia. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Unsold Container Homes in South Cotabato - Prices You Won't Believe! Shipping Container Homes | Search Ads Search Now Undo Her demands included: Rs 12 crore in alimony A BMW luxury car A high-end flat in Mumbai The matter was taken up by a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai, Justice K Vinod Chandran, and Justice NV Anjaria. Live Events CJI: 'Why don't you work?' During the hearing, CJI Gavai questioned the fairness of the woman's expectations considering her background. He said, as quoted by NDTV : 'You're an IT person. You've done your MBA. You're in demand in cities like Bengaluru and Hyderabad... Why don't you work?' Highlighting that the marriage lasted only 18 months, the CJI further remarked (via Bar and Bench): 'It lasted just 18 months. And you are seeking a crore a month?' The Court viewed the demand as excessive and stressed that maintenance is not a substitute for self-reliance. The Court's Verdict: Dignity Over Dependence The Court offered the woman two options: Accept the luxury apartment without legal entanglements, or Opt for a one-time settlement of Rs 4 crore The Bench reiterated its stance with a powerful closing note: 'You are well-educated. You should not be depending on handouts. You should earn and live with dignity.' This case echoes a series of recent judgements where Indian courts clarified that maintenance laws are for support, not entitlement: In March 2025, the Delhi High Court ruled that Section 125 of CrPC is meant to protect, not reward, individuals who avoid work despite being qualified. The court said: 'A well-educated wife with ability and past work experience should not remain idle solely to claim maintenance.' In December 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that alimony cannot be claimed merely to match the husband's wealth. The Court said a husband is not obligated to maintain his ex-wife as per his rising financial status after separation. The Supreme Court's latest observation sends a powerful message: Education and skills are empowerment tools, and the law encourages individuals, especially women, to use them. Inputs from TOI
New Indian Express
a day ago
- New Indian Express
Orissa High Court nullifies fraudulent land sale, protects SC heirs in Keonjhar case
CUTTACK: In a significant judgment, the Orissa High Court has nullified a series of disputed land transactions involving undivided joint property in Baniapat Khuntapada, Keonjhar district, citing serious irregularities, fraud, and violation of Scheduled Caste rights. Justice SK Panigrahi, in his order on July 18, held the sale deeds and all derivative rights arising from them as invalid, directing a freeze on compensation disbursement to the buyers of the land which was later acquired for a national highway project. He also directed the collector of Keonjhar to launch an inquiry into the lapses and initiate disciplinary action against erring officials, if necessary. The case revolves around 4.40 acre of ancestral not partitioned land jointly owned by three brothers and three sisters belonging to a Scheduled Caste family. The three sisters Srimati Sethi, Saraswati Sethy and Malati Behera approached the court after being excluded from a series of sales of portions of the land executed between 2011 and 2014 by their brothers without their consent. Advocate Dayananda Mohapatra represented the petitioners. The land was sold to Dillip Kumar Pati, a member of the general caste, via a dubious intermediary Balaram Patra, a daily wage labourer and BPL cardholder with no visible means to conduct transactions worth crores. The court noted that Patra's role raised serious concerns suggestive of a potentially orchestrated pattern of irregularity. The court found that original executants Tulasi and Maheswar Sethy were illiterate and likely unaware of the legal implications of the thumb impression-based sale deeds. The transactions, Justice Panigrahi stated, appeared to be part of a carefully engineered arrangement designed to exclude lawful coparceners (equal shareholders). The land was later acquired for a National Highway project in 2015, with Rs 6.96 crore initially disbursed as compensation which was later on appeal enhanced to Rs 21.08 crore. While disposing of the petition, the high court has now directed the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) not to release any compensation to Dillip or his nominees, and recover any funds already paid. NHAI has been asked to initiate an apportionment process with participation from all rightful heirs. Mutation entries in Dillip's name have also been suspended pending lawful partition.
Economic Times
2 days ago
- Economic Times
Debt by cash transactions of over Rs 20,000 not legally enforceable: Kerala HC
Synopsis The Kerala High Court made a significant ruling. It involves cash transactions exceeding Rs 20,000. Such debts are not legally enforceable without proper justification. This decision came during a cheque dishonor case appeal. The court acquitted the accused, emphasizing the need to discourage large cash transactions. This aligns with India's digital economy goals. The Kerala High Court on Friday declared that a debt created by a cash transaction of above Rs 20,000 in violation of the Income Tax Act is not a "legally enforceable debt" unless there is a valid explanation for the same. ADVERTISEMENT Justice P V Kunhikrishnan made the declaration while allowing a plea for setting aside the conviction and sentence of a man accused in a cheque dishonor case. The accused was sentenced to one year and imposed with a fine of Rs 9 lakh by a sessions court for the offence of dishonour of cheque due to insufficiency of funds in the account under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act. In his appeal in the High Court against the sessions court decision, the accused claimed that as the amount of Rs 9 lakh given to him by the complainant was in cash, it was an illegal transaction according to the Income Tax laws. "Therefore, a debt created by an illegal transaction cannot be treated as a legally enforceable debt," the accused had claimed. Agreeing with the accused's contention, Justice Kunhikrishnan said that if a criminal court "indirectly legalises such illegal transactions in violation of the IT Act" by treating them as a legally enforceable debt, it will be against the aim of the country to discourage cash transactions above Rs 20,000. ADVERTISEMENT The High Court said that discouraging cash transactions above Rs 20,000 was also "a part of the 'digital India' dream of our country, which is propounded by our Prime Minister to save our economy and to curb a parallel economy in our country". "If the debt arises through an illegal transaction, that debt cannot be treated as a legally enforceable debt. If the court regularises such transactions, that will encourage illegal transactions by the citizens. Even black money will be converted into white money through the criminal courts," the High Court said. ADVERTISEMENT It further said that in such cases the accused should challenge such transactions in evidence and has to rebut the presumption under section 139 of the NI Act that "the holder of a cheque received it for the discharge of a debt or other liability". In the instant case, the accused had rebutted the presumption by claiming that the complainant does not have the source to loan out Rs 9 lakh and therefore, the debt alleged to be due to him cannot be treated as a legally enforceable one, the HC said. ADVERTISEMENT It allowed the accused's revision petition and acquitted him by setting aside his conviction and sentence by the lower court. The High Court said if anybody pays an amount in excess of Rs 20,000 to another person by cash in violation of the IT Act and thereafter receives a cheque for that debt, he should take responsibility to get back the amount, unless there is a valid explanation for such cash transactions. ADVERTISEMENT "If there is no valid explanation in tune with provisions of the IT Act, the doors of the criminal court will be closed for such illegal transactions," the HC said. It also made it clear that its findings would be prospective in nature. (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel) (Catch all the Business News, Breaking News, Budget 2025 Events and Latest News Updates on The Economic Times.) Subscribe to The Economic Times Prime and read the ET ePaper online. NEXT STORY
