The Supreme Court stayed the operation of the Bombay High Court’s order dated 10 October 2025, which modified an earlier interim order and barred Kirloskar Proprietary Ltd. (KPL) from licensing the “Kirloskar” trademark to group companies. The Court found the additional restraint unjustified while the appeal was still pending.
The long-standing Kirloskar group dispute concerns branding control among family companies. While KPL holds the family trademarks, KBL accused it of granting trademarks to affiliates competing in identical industrial sectors. KPL maintained it only administered non-exclusive licences among family-run companies per historical practice.
In January 2025, a trial court had granted KBL interim relief restraining KPL from creating third-party rights in the joint family’s brand, “Kirloskar.”
In a commercial appeal filed by Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. (KBL), the Bombay High Court partly stayed that relief vide its order dated July 2025, allowing intra-group licensing but not assignment. However, a subsequent modification order on 10 October 2025 imposed a complete ban on even intra-group licensing, prompting KPL to file the special leave petition.
KPL argued that this order effectively extended the injunction beyond the trial court’s original scope, despite no dispute existing over KPL’s ownership of the mark.
The Bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed that though arguments on merits were reserved for later hearing, the High Court’s modified order expanded its original restraint without fully addressing factual aspects of prior intra-group licensing.
It found this broader prohibition prima facie unjustified, as licensing, unlike assignment, does not transfer ownership but only grants temporary usage rights. The Court recognized that proprietorial rights in the Kirloskar trademark remain undisputed, and expanding the injunction risked upsetting the balance before appellate adjudication.
In result, the Bombay High Court order dated 10 October 2025 was stayed pending further hearing. Parties were allowed to exchange written submissions before 4 November 2025, when the matter will be next heard. The 25 July 2025 order remains operative, permitting licensing within the group while prohibiting outright assignment.
Appearances:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Mr. Balbir Singh, Sr. Advs.; Mr. Tushar Ajinkya, Ms. Sukanya Sehgal, Ms. Misha Matlani, Ms. Ritu Choudhary, Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advs.; Ms. Pratiksha Sharma, AOR
For the Respondents: Dr. A M Singhvi, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Hiren Kamod, Mr. Nishad Nadkarni, Mr. Nirupam Lodha, Mr. Ashif Navodia, Mr. Kshitij Parashar, Mr. Gautam Wadhwa, Ms. Jaanvi Chopra, Mr. Yash Johri, Advs.; M/S. Khaitan & Co., AOR
Mr. C. Aryama Sundaram, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Abhishek Gupta, Mr. Ayush Jain, Advs.; Mr. Ankit Acharya, AOR
