SC stays high court's modified order in ‘Kirloskar' licensing dispute

Kirloskar Proprietary Ltd (KPL) has won relief in the Supreme Court, which stayed a modified Bombay High Court order that had restrained the company from licensing the ‘Kirloskar’ trademark to other group companies.

In the order made public on Saturday, the division bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan held, “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”.

The ‘Kirloskar’ trademark has been used by several group firms since the 1920s. But by 1965, the founding family decided a single company should control the brand’s use and integrity. This led to the formation of KPL, which became the custodian of the trademark for the benefit of all Kirloskar entities.

The matter basically revolves around a plea that Sanjay Kirloskar, the owner of Kirloskar Brothers Ltd (KBL), filed with the Bombay High Court, asking for an injunction against Kirloskar Proprietary Ltd's trademark licensing. However, in its July ruling, the Bombay High Court declined to stop KPL from obtaining a licence for the Kirloskar trademark.

In their July order, a bench comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice MS Karnik observed that “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 also stated, “Even as per Kirloskar Brothers’ own case, the use of Kirloskar marks was never intended to be, nor it is exclusive to one company.”

Court orders

This July order was later modified on 10 October by the Bombay High Court, barring KPL from granting or transferring the “Kirloskar” trademark rights to other group companies operating in similar or competing sectors. This change was made after KBL filed an interim application requesting a revision of the earlier order.

Between 2015 and 2018, KPL decided to revise its long-standing user agreements after seeking legal advice. On 2 April 2018, it asked KBL and other group companies to sign new trademark agreements. KBL declined 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 violating earlier agreements. KPL then issued a breach notice, which KBL challenged legally.

On 9 January, the Pune court granted KBL a wide interim protection, preventing KPL from issuing any new licences for the trademark. KPL appealed, arguing that the lower court’s order disrupted long-standing governance structures and was unfair to other group firms using the name. The high court mostly agreed with KPL’s position.