SC stays high court’s modified order in ‘Kirloskar’ licensing dispute
Kirloskar Proprietary Ltd (KPL) won relief in the Supreme Court, which set aside the Bombay High Court order restraining the company from licensing the trademark ‘Kirloskar’ to other group companies.
In the judgment made public on Saturday, the division bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan stated: “Prima facie, we hold that the order dated 10 October 2025, which extended the scope of the earlier restriction dated 25 July 2025, should not be accepted while the appeal is pending for consideration and considering all the facts regarding the earlier licensing of the Kirloskar brand in question.” We are of the opinion. group companies were not discussed.”
The ‘Kirloskar’ brand has been used by many group companies since the 1920s. But by 1965, the founding family decided that a single company should control the use and integrity of the brand. This led to the formation of KPL, which became the custodian of the trademark for the benefit of all Kirloskar entities.
The issue basically revolves around the allegation that Sanjay Kirloskar, the owner of Kirloskar Brothers Ltd (KBL), has approached the Bombay High Court seeking interim relief against the trademark license of Kirloskar Proprietary Ltd. However, in its judgment in July, the Bombay High Court refused to restrain KPL from obtaining a license for the Kirloskar trademark.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice MS Karnik in its judgment in July observed: “At the interim stage, there is no justification to restrain Kirloskar Proprietary Company from creating licensing rights in the Kirloskar brand under its Articles of Association, which has been the existing arrangement for the last 50 years.”
The bench further stated: “Even according to Kirloskar Brothers’ own case, the use of Kirloskar marks was never intended and is not exclusive to one company alone.”
court decisions
This decision in July was later modified by the Bombay High Court on October 10, restraining KPL from granting or transferring the “Kirloskar” trademark rights to other group companies operating in similar or competing industries. This change was made after KBL filed an interim application seeking revision of the previous decision.
KPL decided to revise its long-standing user agreements after seeking legal advice between 2015 and 2018. On April 2, 2018, he asked KBL and other group companies to sign new brand agreements. KBL refused and instead filed a civil suit in Pune, triggering the ongoing dispute.
In June 2024, KBL applied for registered user status and, according to KPL, continued to violate previous agreements. KPL subsequently issued a notice of infringement, which KBL legally challenged.
On January 9, the Pune court granted blanket interim protection to KBL, preventing KPL from issuing fresh licenses for the trademark. KPL appealed, arguing that the lower court’s decision disrupted long-standing management structures and was unfair to other group firms that used the name. The high court mostly accepted KPL’s view.
