Introduction
Several group companies have been using the “Kirloskar” trademark since the 1920s. However, the founding family determined in 1965 that the use and integrity of the brand should be controlled by a single firm. As a result, KPL was established, and for the benefit of all Kirloskar enterprises, it took on the role of trademark custodian. Recently, a modified Bombay High Court ruling that had prohibited Kirloskar Proprietary Ltd (KPL) from licensing the “Kirloskar” trademark to other group firms was stayed by the Supreme Court, providing relief to the company. “We are of the prima facie view that the order dated 10th October 2025, which expands the scope of the restraint imposed earlier via order dated 25th July 2025, ought not to have been passed while the appeal is pending for consideration and full facts in relation to any earlier licensing of such Kirloskar mark within the group companies have not been discussed,” the division bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan held in the ruling made public on Saturday.
Background
The main focus of the case is a plea that Kirloskar Brothers Ltd (KBL) owner Sanjay Kirloskar filed with the Bombay High Court, requesting an injunction against the trademark licensing of Kirloskar Proprietary Ltd. The Bombay High Court, however, refused to prevent KPL from acquiring a license for the Kirloskar trademark in its July decision.
Key Points
Court Order: “There is no justification at the interim stage to restrain Kirloskar Proprietary from creating licensing rights in respect of the Kirloskar mark in accordance with its Articles of Association, this being the existing arrangement for the last 50 years,” the bench, which included Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice MS Karnik, noted in its July order. “The use of Kirloskar marks was never intended to be, nor is it exclusive to one company,” the bench added, citing Kirloskar Brothers’ own case.
Amendment to the order: The Bombay High Court later amended this July order on October 10th, prohibiting KPL from granting or transferring the “Kirloskar” trademark rights to other group companies that operate in related or rival industries. After KBL submitted an interim application asking for a revision of the previous order, this modification was made. After consulting with legal counsel, KPL made the decision to update its long-standing user agreements between 2015 and 2018. It requested that KBL and other group companies sign new trademark agreements on April 2, 2018. The ongoing dispute began when KBL declined and instead filed a civil suit in Pune.
Previous application: KBL applied for registered user status in June 2024 and, according to KPL, kept breaking previous agreements. Following that, KPL sent out a breach notice, which KBL legally contested.
Temporary protection: The Pune court gave KBL broad temporary protection on January 9th, which stopped KPL from granting any more trademark licenses. KPL filed an appeal, claiming that the lower court’s ruling was unjust to other group companies that used the name and upset established governance systems. The high court largely supported KPL’s argument.
Recent developments
On October 17, the Bombay High Court’s ruling prohibiting Kirloskar Proprietary Limited from granting licenses for the “Kirloskar” trademark to other group companies engaged in industries that overlap with Kirloskar Brothers Limited was stayed by the Supreme Court.
Conclusion
The main conclusion is that KPL won a temporary victory because the Supreme Court’s stay permits it to maintain the trademark-licensing system (or at the very least, the previous status quo) for the time being. Tighter restrictions from the Bombay High Court have been halted until a full hearing. To put it another way, the issue has not yet been decided on its merits, but KPL still has license flexibility, and the new restriction imposed by the high court cannot yet be implemented.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY S. KAVIYA SRI
