Supreme Court Reinstates Kirloskar’s Right to License Group Trademark, Urges Speedy Bombay High Court Decision

Supreme Court Reinstates Kirloskar’s Right to License Group Trademark, Urges Speedy Bombay HC Decision

Introduction

The Supreme Court has reaffirmed the right of Kirloskar Proprietary Limited (KPL) to license the “Kirloskar” trademark to its group entities, pending final adjudication of the long-running intra-group dispute before the Bombay High Court. While safeguarding existing commercial arrangements within the Kirloskar group, the Court has also urged the High Court to decide the matter expeditiously, given the significant business implications involved.

Factual Background

The dispute traces its origins to a suit filed by Kirloskar Brothers Limited (KBL), led by its Chairman and Managing Director, Sanjay Kirloskar. KBL sought to restrain Kirloskar Proprietary Limited from creating third-party interests in the “Kirloskar” trademark, including through licensing or assignment, citing family and group arrangements governing the use of the mark.

In January 2025, a Pune trial court granted an ad-interim injunction restraining KPL from licensing or assigning the trademark. This order was challenged before the Bombay High Court. In July 2025, the High Court stayed the trial court’s injunction, permitting KPL to license the mark to its member companies under its Articles of Association, while restraining assignment of the trademark in business areas overlapping with KBL.

However, in October 2025, the High Court modified its earlier order and extended the restraint to licensing as well, insofar as group entities operated in similar or competing business domains. This modification prompted KPL to approach the Supreme Court.

Procedural Background

KPL filed appeals before the Supreme Court challenging the October 2025 modification order of the Bombay High Court. An interim stay was granted by the Supreme Court on October 17, 2025, suspending the operation of the modified order. The appeals were finally disposed of by a Bench comprising Justices Manoj Misra and Manmohan on January 9, 2026.

Issues

1. Whether, pending appeal, the Bombay High Court was justified in expanding the scope of restraint from assignment to licensing of the “Kirloskar” trademark.

2. Whether interim orders could curtail the trademark owner’s long-standing licensing rights without a detailed adjudication on merits.

Contentions of the Parties

Kirloskar Proprietary Limited argued that the modification order unduly interfered with its proprietary rights as the trademark owner. Senior counsel submitted that licensing and assignment are legally distinct concepts, and that restraining licensing would disrupt settled commercial arrangements across the Kirloskar group.

Kirloskar Brothers Limited defended the High Court’s approach, contending that the restraint was necessary to preserve historical understandings within the family and to prevent creation of competing interests under the shared family mark.

Reasoning and Analysis

The Supreme Court noted, at a prima facie level, that the scope of interim restraint should not be expanded during the pendency of an appeal without careful consideration. The Bench underscored the legal distinction between licensing, which confers a limited right to use, and assignment, which may involve transfer of proprietary interests.

The Court found merit in the submission that restraining licensing at the interim stage could have wide commercial ramifications and alter the status quo rather than preserve it. Importantly, the Court clarified that its observations were purely interim in nature and should not influence the High Court’s final determination on merits.

Decision

By its final order dated January 9, 2026, the Supreme Court made its earlier interim stay absolute. As a result, Kirloskar Proprietary Limited is permitted to continue licensing the “Kirloskar” trademark to its member companies. The restraint imposed by the Bombay High Court’s October 2025 modification order shall remain stayed. All rights and contentions of the parties are kept open for final adjudication.

Recognising the commercial sensitivity and scale of the dispute, the Supreme Court requested the Bombay High Court to decide the pending appeal expeditiously, preferably within three months.

In this case the plaintiff was represented by Mr. Mukul Rohatgi and Mr. Balbir Singh, Senior Advocates. Meanwhile the defendant was represented by Mr. Gopal Subramanian, Mr. Amit Sibal and Ms. Aarohi Bhalla, Senior Advocates.