The Bombay High Court has allowed Kirloskar Proprietary Ltd (KPL) to resume licensing the iconic ‘Kirloskar’ trademark to group companies, lifting a lower court’s sweeping ban.
In an interim ruling on 25 July, the court set aside a Pune court’s January order that had barred any new brand licensing. However, it maintained a key restriction—no new licensees may compete directly with Kirloskar Brothers Ltd (KBL), the listed pumps and valves company.
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.
Matters changed in recent years.
Legal overhaul
Between 2015 and 2018, KPL, acting on legal advice, decided it needed to update long-standing user agreements. On 2 April 2018, it asked KBL and other group companies to sign new trademark agreements.
KBL refused and instead filed a civil suit in Pune, sparking the current litigation.
In June 2024, KBL filed for registered user status and, according to KPL, continued to breach the earlier agreements. KPL sent a breach notice, prompting KBL’s legal challenge.
On 9 January, the Pune court granted KBL broad interim protection, halting KPL from granting any new licenses for the mark.
KPL appealed, arguing the lower court order “unilaterally altered decades-old governance arrangements” and was unfair to other group firms entitled to use the name. The HC largely agreed.
“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,” said the bench, led by Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice MS Karnik.
The court also noted, “Even as per Kirloskar Brothers’ own case, the use of Kirloskar marks was never intended to be nor it is exclusive to one company.”
But the Court added a caveat: the longstanding rule that no new license should be issued for overlapping or competing business lines must remain.
“As from 1969 till date, no license has been issued by the Kirloskar Proprietary to any other group companies of Kirloskar for use in respect of overlapping businesses, this position should continue,” the judges said.
Both KBL and KPL are expected to present further arguments before HC on 11 August.
Sebi battle simmers
Parallel to the trademark dispute, the Kirloskar Group is also embroiled in a battle with the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi).
In 2024, Sebi directed several Kirloskar companies—including Kirloskar Oil Engines, Kirloskar Pneumatic, Kirloskar Ferrous Industries, and others—to disclose a 2009 Deed of Family Settlement under new securities disclosure rules, even though the listed companies were not party to the agreement.
These Kirloskar firms have challenged the constitutional validity of Sebi’s amended Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements (LODR) Regulations. They argue that the rules are “arbitrary, wholly unreasonable,” and contrary to contract law principles because they force companies to disclose agreements executed privately among promoters or family members—even when the listed entity itself is not a signatory.
The HC has sought Sebi’s response, and a hearing is scheduled for 20 August.
About The Author
