Bombay High Court stayed a Pune court order restraining Kirloskar Proprietary Ltd from licensing the ‘Kirloskar’ trademark. KPL can now license within group companies, except for competing businesses with KBL.
Mumbai: On July 29, the Bombay High Court put on hold a recent injunction issued by a Pune trial court that had stopped Kirloskar Proprietary Limited (KPL) from creating any third-party interest in the ‘Kirloskar’ trademarks.
The case is a trademark dispute that has seen tensions rise between the two companies within the Kirloskar Group.
The Division Bench, consisting of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice MS Karnik, passed the order after hearing arguments from both sides.
ALSO READ: CHUTIYARAM Trademark Accepted by Trade Marks Registry for Namkeen & Biscuits Brand
The High Court allowed KPL to license the Kirloskar trademarks to its member companies according to its Articles of Association, which has been the practice for the last five decades.
However, the court made it clear that such licensing should not be extended to businesses that compete with Kirloskar Brothers Limited.
The court stated,
“There is no justification at the interim stage to restrain ‘Kirloskar Proprietary’ from creating licencing rights in respect of the Kirloskar mark in accordance with Articles of Association, this being the existing arrangement for the last 50 years.”
This legal battle dates back to 2018, when KPL decided to replace its existing trademark user agreements with new ones, citing changing legal requirements. Fresh agreements were sent to all licensees, including KBL.
However, KBL refused to sign the new agreement and instead filed a civil suit before the Pune District Court, asserting that it held an irrevocable and exclusive right to use the ‘Kirloskar’ trademark within its business field.
Following this, KPL sent a notice to terminate KBL’s user rights. In response, KBL sought interim relief from the Pune court, which was granted in January 2025.
The trial court had then restrained KPL from granting new licenses or assigning the Kirloskar trademark to any other entity until the case was decided.
KPL challenged the trial court’s interim order before the Bombay High Court, arguing that the trial court had effectively handed KBL final relief at an early stage of the suit. KPL argued that the ‘Kirloskar’ mark had always been shared among group companies for non-competing businesses for over 50 years.
It also maintained that the trademark was never meant to be used exclusively by one company.
The High Court took note of these facts and rejected KBL’s claim to exclusive rights over the Kirloskar trademark.
ALSO READ: Delhi High Court Examines Jurisdictional Challenges in Trademarks Act, 1999
The court observed,
“Even as per Kirloskar Brothers’ own case, the use of Kirloskar marks was never intended to be nor is it exclusive to any one company.”
Further, the judges stressed that courts should avoid disrupting longstanding arrangements when deciding on interim injunctions.
They applied the legal principle that interim relief should preserve the current status and not change it. In this context, the court observed,
“While considering grant of injunction in terms of prayer clause (F), the trial Court ought not to have changed the status-quo by taking away the decades old existing right of Kirloskar Proprietary to grant license with respect to subject marks to any of its member companies at any time.”
However, while granting relief to KPL, the High Court also imposed a restriction. It noted that since 1969, KPL has never issued a license to any other Kirloskar group company for use in areas of business that overlap with KBL.
Accordingly, the court ruled that KPL can continue licensing the Kirloskar marks to its member companies, but only for businesses that do not compete with KBL.
The Court concluded its order with the following observation:
“Though Kirloskar Proprietary may create license in respect of Kirloskar marks in accordance with its Articles of Association in favour of its member companies, Kirloskar Proprietary are restrained from assigning the marks to other Kirloskar group of companies for use in respect of similar/overlapping business of Kirloskar Brothers.”
The matter will be taken up for further hearing on August 11, 2025.
Senior Advocate Darius Khambata represented KPL, along with advocates Rashmin Khandekar, Tushar Ajinkya, Sukanya Sehgal, Misha Matlani, and Saanchi Dhulla from ThinkLaw Advocates.
On the other hand, KBL was represented by Senior Advocate Ravi Kadam, assisted by advocates Hiren Kamod, Nishad Nadkarni, Aasif Nauodia, Khushboo Jhunjhunwala, Jaanui Chopra, and Rakshita Singh from Khaitan & Co.
Case Title:
Kirloskar Proprietary Limited vs. Kirloskar Brothers Limited KBL
Click Here to Read More Reports on Trademark
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
