The Bombay High Court has temporarily stayed a January 9, 2025, order by the Pune District Court in the ongoing trademark dispute within the Kirloskar family.
Bombay High Court
A division bench of the High Court, comprising the Chief Justice and Justice M S Karnik, ruled on Friday that Kirloskar Proprietary Ltd (KPL) is entitled to grant licences to its member companies in line with its Articles of Association. However, it barred KPL from assigning the ‘Kirloskar’ trademarks to other group entities engaged in similar or competing businesses with Kirloskar Brothers Ltd (KBL). The matter will next be heard on August 11, 2025.
The High Court also stayed the temporary injunction earlier granted by the Pune District Court in favour of KBL, observing that the lower court ought not to have disturbed the status quo around the use of the trademark.
Importantly, the HC declined to accept KBL’s claim to exclusive and perpetual ownership of the ‘Kirloskar’ trademark, affirming that the rights to the mark rest with KPL. It noted that the dispute is at an interim stage and found no reason to restrain KPL from exercising its licensing rights.
Kirloskar
The case stems from a wider legal battle among the Kirloskar siblings over the use and ownership of the trademark, as well as the interpretation of a Deed of Family Settlement signed earlier by various family members. KBL is led by Sanjay Kirloskar, while Atul and Rahul Kirloskar head Kirloskar Proprietary.
The ‘Kirloskar’ trademark is used by multiple companies across the group. KPL, formed by the family, serves as the custodian of all Kirloskar-related trademarks and intellectual property, with the mandate to protect the brand from third-party dilution. Ownership of KPL is divided among family members: Atul, Rahul, and Sanjay Kirloskar each hold an 18.5% stake; the family of the late Vikram Kirloskar holds his 18.5% share; and Vijay Kirloskar owns 9%.
Tensions escalated when KPL issued a termination notice to KBL, directing it to stop using the Kirloskar trademark. The Pune District Court had initially granted interim relief to KBL, restraining KPL from acting on the termination notice.
KPL then challenged that order in the High Court, which, in its ruling, acknowledged KPL’s long-standing role as the “protector, custodian, and registered proprietor” of the Kirloskar trademarks. It also clarified that the goodwill associated with the marks belongs to KPL, and rejected KBL’s contention that it remained the beneficial owner even after the trademarks had been formally assigned.
The High Court observed that both the assignment and user agreements clearly refute KBL’s claim to continued beneficial ownership.