Kirloskar Proprietary Ltd (KPL) has obtained relief in the Supreme Court, which stayed an amended Bombay High Court order barring the company from licensing the ‘Kirloskar’ brand to other group companies. In the order announced on Saturday, the division bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan said: “We are of the prima facie view that the order dated October 10, 2025, extending the scope of the restriction earlier imposed by order dated July 25, 2025, should not have been such appeal dated July 25, 2025 which was earlier accepted for consideration of any license and fully disposed of should be Kirloskar mark within the group of companies was not discussed”. The ‘Kirloskar’ brand has been used by various group firms since the 1920s. But by 1965, the founding family decided that a single company should control the brand’s use and integrity. This led to the formation of KPL, which became the custodian of the brand for the benefit of all Kirloskar entities. The matter basically revolves around a plea filed by Sanjay Kirloskar, the owner of Kirloskar Brothers Ltd (KBL), in the Bombay High Court seeking an injunction against Kirloskar Proprietary Ltd’s trademark licensing. However, in its July judgment, the Bombay High Court refused to stop KPL from obtaining a license for the Kirloskar brand. 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 statutes, which is the existing arrangement for the last 50 years.” The bench also said, “Even as per Kirloskar Brothers’ own case, the use of Kirloskar marks was never intended to be, nor is it exclusive to one company.” Court Orders This July order was later amended by the Bombay High Court on October 10, 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 seeking a review of the earlier order. Between 2015 and 2018, KPL decided to review its long-standing user agreements after seeking legal advice. On 2 April 2018, it asked KBL and other group companies to sign new brand agreements. KBL refused and instead filed a civil suit in Pune, sparking the ongoing dispute. In June 2024, KBL applied for registered user status and, according to KPL, continued to violate earlier agreements. KPL then issued an infringement notice, which KBL legally contested. On January 9, the Pune court granted a wide interim protection to KBL, preventing KPL from issuing any new licenses for the brand. KPL appealed, arguing that the lower court’s order disrupted long-standing management structures and was unfair to other group firms using the name. The Supreme Court mostly agreed with KPL’s position.
SC stays Supreme Court’s amended order in ‘Kirloskar’ license dispute
