Introduction
In a major relief for Kirloskar Proprietary Limited (KPL), the Supreme Court of India on October 17, 2025, stayed a Bombay High Court order that had barred KPL from licensing the ‘Kirloskar’ trademark to other group companies operating in business segments that overlap with Kirloskar Brothers Limited (KBL).
The interim stay was granted by a Division Bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, which observed that the High Court’s modification order expanded the scope of earlier restrictions while the appeal was still pending and without discussing the complete factual context.
This development marks the latest chapter in the long-running legal dispute within the Kirloskar Group, one of India’s oldest and most prominent industrial conglomerates, over the use and licensing of the ‘Kirloskar’ brand name.
Background: The Kirloskar Trademark Dispute
The dispute traces back to differences between Kirloskar Proprietary Limited (KPL) and Kirloskar Brothers Limited (KBL) over control and usage rights of the ‘Kirloskar’ trademark, a brand synonymous with engineering excellence for over a century.
Origins of the Trademark Ownership
- KPL was incorporated in 1965 as the custodian and administrator of the ‘Kirloskar’ mark, holding it in trust for the benefit of all group companies.
- In April 2018, KPL sought to renew user agreements with all group entities, including KBL, to formalize trademark usage and prevent misuse.
- KBL, however, refused to sign, alleging that the assignment of marks to KPL was invalid for want of consideration, and that trademark rights should revert to the original companies.
Timeline of Litigation
1. 2018 – Civil Suit by Kirloskar Brothers
KBL filed a civil suit before the Pune Trial Court in July 2018, seeking to restrain KPL from licensing or assigning the ‘Kirloskar’ mark to any third party—including other group entities—pending resolution of ownership disputes.
On January 9, 2025, the Trial Court granted an interim injunction restraining KPL from:
- Licensing or assigning the mark, and
- Permitting its use by other Kirloskar Group companies during the pendency of the suit.
2. July 25, 2025 – Partial Relief from Bombay High Court
KPL challenged the injunction before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court.
On July 25, 2025, the High Court partially modified the injunction, allowing KPL to:
- License the mark to group companies, but
- Only for business activities that do not overlap with those of KBL.
The restriction on assignment of trademarks in overlapping sectors remained.
3. October 10, 2025 – Modification Order Imposes Licensing Ban
In a surprising turn, on October 10, 2025, a different bench of the Bombay High Court modified the July order.
It expanded the restraint by adding the word “licensing” — effectively reinstating the broader ban originally imposed by the Trial Court.
This modification prevented KPL from licensing the Kirloskar trademark even to group companies in sectors where business activities overlapped with KBL’s operations.
4. October 17, 2025 – Supreme Court Intervention
KPL then moved the Supreme Court, filing Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) challenging both High Court orders—dated July 25 and October 10, 2025.
The apex court found merit in KPL’s contention that the October 10 order unduly expanded restrictions without a full hearing or factual examination.
Supreme Court’s Observations
While granting an interim stay on the October 10 order, the Supreme Court observed that the licensing ban was added through a modification order passed even though the main appeal was still pending.
The Bench noted:
“We are of the prima facie view that the order dated 10th October 2025, which expands the scope of the restraint imposed earlier vide order dated 25th July 2025, ought not to have been passed when the appeal is pending for consideration and full facts in respect of any earlier licensing of such Kirloskar mark within the group companies have not been discussed.”
In essence, the Court expressed concern over procedural impropriety, suggesting that the High Court’s second order went beyond the issues already adjudicated in the pending appeal.
The Supreme Court accordingly stayed the operation of the October 10, 2025 order, restoring the situation to the status quo following the July 25 ruling.
Legal Significance
1. Principle of Judicial Discipline
The Supreme Court emphasized that a modification order cannot alter or expand the scope of an earlier judgment while the appeal remains pending. Any such modification requires a fresh factual and legal determination based on due process.
2. Protection of Trademark Licensing Rights
The ruling temporarily protects KPL’s right to license the ‘Kirloskar’ mark within the group, subject to conditions laid down in the earlier July order. This allows the group’s various entities to continue using the brand in non-overlapping business sectors.
3. Corporate Governance and Family Business Implications
The dispute underscores the challenges of brand management and intellectual property rights in family-controlled conglomerates. The judgment reinforces the need for clear, legally enforceable trademark user agreements among group entities.
Counsel Appearances
For Kirloskar Proprietary Limited (Petitioner):
- Senior Advocates: Mukul Rohatgi and Balbir Singh
- Advocates: Tushar Ajinkya, Pratiksha Sharma, Sukanya Sehgal, Misha Matlani, Ritu Choudhary, Mukesh Kumar
For Kirloskar Brothers Limited (Respondent):
- Senior Advocates: A.M. Singhvi and C. Aryama Sundaram
- Advocates: Hiren Kamod, Nishad Nadkarni, Nirupam Lodha, Ashif Navodia, Kshitij Parashar, Gautam Wadhwa, Jaanvi Chopra, Yash Johri, Abhishek Gupta, Ankit Acharya, and Ayush Jain
- Instructed by: Khaitan & Co.
Analysis: Balancing Trademark Rights Within Corporate Groups
The Kirloskar case highlights a recurring issue in family-run business empires: the difficulty of maintaining brand unity while allowing operational independence among member companies.
Key questions raised include:
- Can a holding entity license a family brand to subsidiaries or affiliates with similar business operations?
- How should courts interpret “overlapping business sectors” in trademark disputes within a group?
- What safeguards are needed to prevent brand dilution or consumer confusion?
The Supreme Court’s interim order, though procedural, signals a measured approach—preserving business continuity while ensuring that the final adjudication of ownership and licensing rights remains grounded in factual clarity.
Implications for Indian Trademark Law
- Licensing vs. Assignment Distinction:
The case clarifies that licensing and assignment carry different legal implications. Courts must distinguish between temporary rights of use and permanent transfer of ownership. - Judicial Caution in Pending Appeals:
Modification orders that alter substantive rights midway through appeals risk creating legal uncertainty. The Supreme Court’s intervention reinforces the principle of appellate consistency. - Family Brand Disputes:
The judgment may influence future family business disputes involving joint trademarks (e.g., Bajaj, Godrej, Birla), encouraging clearer IP governance frameworks.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s interim stay in Kirloskar Proprietary Ltd. v. Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. (2025) restores stability to one of India’s oldest industrial families’ brand management structure. By holding that the October 10 order improperly expanded restrictions, the Court reaffirmed the limits of judicial modification and the need for procedural discipline.
As the appeal proceeds, the larger questions concerning ownership, licensing, and equitable use of family trademarks remain open for judicial determination. The eventual outcome will have far-reaching consequences for corporate governance, brand protection, and intra-group trademark licensing in India.
Also Read
Can Multi-State Cooperative Societies Submit Resolution Plans Under IBC? Supreme Court To Consider
