High Court of Judicature at Bombay Adjudicates Multiple Commercial Appeals in Trademark and Copyright Dispute Concerning Alcoholic Beverage Marks Mansion House and Savoy Club. Interim Injunction Orders Relating to Passing Off and Infringement Under Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Copyright Act, 1957 Formed the Core of the Appeals.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY
  • 3
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The dispute before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Commercial Appellate Division, arose from a long-standing commercial relationship between UTO Nederland B.V. and its subsidiary (collectively UTO) and Tilaknagar Industries Ltd. UTO, a Dutch company, claimed proprietorship of the trademarks 'MANSION HOUSE' and 'SAVOY CLUB' and had licensed their use to Tilaknagar under a 1983 agreement. Disputes emerged after UTO was restrained by a Dutch court in 1987 from describing its products as Scotch Whisky, following which UTO ceded the marks to Tilaknagar conditionally. Tilaknagar eventually stopped purchasing concentrates from UTO and began manufacturing using its own concentrates. UTO filed a suit in 2009 seeking permanent injunction against infringement of copyright in labels, passing off, mandatory injunction for withdrawal of registrations, and damages of Rs.78 crores. In the suit, UTO took out Notice of Motion No.993/2009 for temporary injunction, which the learned Single Judge dismissed on 22 December 2011. UTO filed Appeal No.66/2012 against that dismissal. Meanwhile, Tilaknagar filed a counterclaim and sought injunction through Notice of Motion No.1287/2010, which was dismissed on 7 February 2025. Plaintiff No.3's Interim Application (Lodg.) No.16999/2023 seeking leave to introduce products in West Bengal was allowed on 7 February 2025. Tilaknagar filed Commercial Appeal (L) Nos.6617/2025 and 6622/2025 challenging the dismissal of its motion and the allowing of the interim application, respectively. Other interim applications and an appeal (Appeal No.567/2014) were also pending. The judgment excerpt provided details the factual background and procedural history up to the filing of the appeals, but does not include the final operative decision or the court's analysis on the merits. Therefore, the final outcome of the appeals, the legal reasoning, and any directions are not available in the provided text.

Headnote

A) Intellectual Property - Passing Off and Trademark Infringement - Interim Injunction - Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Dispute pertained to use of 'MANSION HOUSE' and 'SAVOY CLUB' marks by defendant after termination of supply arrangement; plaintiffs sought temporary injunction against defendant for passing off and copyright infringement; appeal arose against dismissal of Notice of Motion No.993/2009. Court considered the challenge but final decision not available in provided excerpt (Paras 1-6).

B) Intellectual Property - Counterclaim Injunction - Passing Off - Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Defendant filed counterclaim and sought injunction against plaintiffs from using deceptively similar marks; defendant's Notice of Motion No.1287/2010 dismissed by Single Judge; appeal filed (Paras 1-6).

C) Intellectual Property - Territorial Product Launch - Interim Relief - Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Plaintiff No.3 sought leave to introduce products under 'MANSION HOUSE' in West Bengal; Single Judge allowed interim application; defendant challenged (Paras 1-6).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the plaintiffs established a prima facie case for temporary injunction against the defendant for passing off and copyright infringement; whether the defendant was entitled to an injunction in its counterclaim; whether plaintiff No.3 should be allowed to introduce products under the mark 'MANSION HOUSE' in West Bengal.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Law Points

  • Trademark infringement
  • passing off
  • copyright infringement
  • interim injunction
  • prima facie case
  • balance of convenience
  • commercial courts appellate jurisdiction
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2025 LawText (BOM) (07) 48

Appeal No.66 of 2012 in Notice of Motion No.993 of 2009 in Suit No.632 of 2009 with connected matters

2025-07-16

Alok Aradhe, CJ and Sandeep V. Marne, J.

2025:BHC-OS:10958-DB

Mr. Ravi Kadam, Senior Advocate; Mr. Venkatesh Dhond, Senior Advocate; Mr. H.W. Kane; Mr. Rohan Kadam; Mr. Rohan Kelkar; Mr. Ashutosh Kane; Mr. Manvendra Kane; Ms. Vedangi Soman; Mr. I.K. Paranjape; Mr. Darius Khambatta, Senior Advocate; Mr. Ashish Kamat, Senior Advocate; Mr. Karl Tamboly; Mr. Priyank Kapadia; Ms. Yashvi Panchal; Mr. L.M. Jenkins; Mr. Siddhant Dalvi

UTO Nederland B.V. and Anr.

Tilaknagar Industries Ltd.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Commercial dispute involving trademark and copyright infringement, passing off, and interim injunctions concerning alcoholic beverage brands 'MANSION HOUSE' and 'SAVOY CLUB'.

Remedy Sought

Appellants (original plaintiffs) sought temporary injunction against defendant from using marks 'MANSION HOUSE', 'M.H.', 'M.H.B.', 'SAVOY CLUB' and infringing copyright in labels; defendant sought injunction against plaintiffs in its counterclaim.

Filing Reason

Dispute arose over rights to marks 'MANSION HOUSE' and 'SAVOY CLUB' after defendant stopped purchasing concentrates from plaintiffs and used its own concentrate, leading to claims of passing off and infringement.

Previous Decisions

Single Judge dismissed Notice of Motion No.993/2009 on 22 December 2011; Single Judge dismissed Notice of Motion No.1287/2010 and allowed Interim Application (Lodg.) No.16999/2023 on 7 February 2025; appeals filed against these orders.

Issues

Whether plaintiffs made out a prima facie case for temporary injunction against defendant for passing off and copyright infringement. Whether defendant established entitlement to injunction in counterclaim against plaintiffs. Whether plaintiff No.3 should be permitted to introduce products under mark 'MANSION HOUSE' in West Bengal.

Judgment Excerpts

Commercial Appeal No.66/2012 is filed by the Plaintiffs challenging the judgment and order dated 22 December 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing Notice of Motion No. 993/2009 filed by the Plaintiffs seeking temporary injunction against the Defendant from passing off by use of the marks ‘MANSION HOUSE’, ‘M.H.’, ‘M.H.B.’ and ‘Savoy Club’ and committing infringement of Plaintiff’s copyrights in labels associated with the said marks. By order dated 15 January 1987, the Dutch Court restrained UTO from indicating its product as Scotch Whisky. Tilaknagar sent a telex requesting UTO to issue No-Objection letter for registration of the wordmark ‘MANSION HOUSE’ in the name of Tilaknagar on 9 February 1989.

Procedural History

UTO filed Suit No.632/2009 (later Commercial IP Suit No.2/2009) against Tilaknagar seeking permanent injunctions and damages. UTO's Notice of Motion No.993/2009 for temporary injunction was dismissed on 22 December 2011, against which UTO filed Appeal No.66/2012. Tilaknagar filed a counterclaim and sought injunction via Notice of Motion No.1287/2010, dismissed on 7 February 2025. Plaintiff No.3's Interim Application (Lodg.) No.16999/2023 for launch in West Bengal was allowed on 7 February 2025. Tilaknagar filed Commercial Appeal (L) Nos.6617/2025 and 6622/2025 challenging those orders. Other matters include Notice of Motion No.1427/2014, Appeal No.567/2014, Interim Application No.2979/2024, and Cross Objection (L) No.3/2012.

Acts & Sections

  • Trade Marks Act, 1999:
  • Copyright Act, 1957:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Judicature at Bombay Adjudicates Multiple Commercial Appeals in Trademark and Copyright Dispute Concerning Alcoholic Beverage Marks Mansion House and Savoy Club. Interim Injunction Orders Relating to Passing Off and Infringement Under T...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses President of Municipal Council's Challenge to Government Resolution Appointing PWD as Implementing Agency – Funds Not Directly Credited to Council Held Not Municipal Fund. State Government Empowered Under Section 49A of ...