Supreme Court Intervenes in Kirloskar Feud, Stays Expanded Trademark Injunction

New Delhi – In a significant development in the protracted intellectual property battle roiling the Kirloskar family, the Supreme Court of India has stayed a Bombay High Court order that had broadened the scope of an injunction against Kirloskar Proprietary Limited (KPL). The apex court's interim stay, granted on October 17, 2025, halts the High Court's directive that barred KPL from licensing the legacy 'Kirloskar' trademark to group companies operating in business segments that overlap with Kirloskar Brothers Limited (KBL).

The order, delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan, addresses a critical question of procedural propriety: the extent to which an appellate court can modify its own interim orders while the primary appeal remains pending. The bench expressed a prima facie view that the High Court's modification, which significantly intensified the restrictions on KPL, was unwarranted at this stage of the litigation.

“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 Supreme Court observed.

The decision provides temporary relief to KPL, represented by a formidable legal team including Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Balbir Singh, and sets the stage for a deeper examination of the interim arrangements governing the use of one of India's most recognized industrial trademarks.

The Genesis of the Dispute: Ownership and Licensing Rights

The legal conflict is rooted in the ownership and usage rights of the 'Kirloskar' trademark, a name synonymous with Indian engineering for over a century. The intricate corporate structure designed to manage this legacy is at the heart of the matter.

• Kirloskar Proprietary Limited (KPL): Incorporated in 1965, KPL was established as a holding entity to own, manage, and administer the 'Kirloskar' trademark. Its stated purpose was to act as a custodian of the mark for the benefit of all companies within the Kirloskar Group.
• The Trigger: The current dispute ignited in April 2018 when KPL sought to formalize the trademark usage by asking all group entities, including the publicly listed Kirloskar Brothers Limited (KBL), to execute fresh user agreements.
• KBL's Stand: KBL, a key entity within the group, refused to sign the new agreement. It mounted a fundamental challenge to KPL’s authority, contending that the original assignment of the trademark to KPL was invalid due to a lack of consideration. KBL argued that, consequently, the rights to the trademark should revert to them, particularly concerning their lines of business.

This refusal escalated into formal litigation, with KBL filing a civil suit in July 2018 before the Pune Trial Court, seeking a declaration of its rights and challenging KPL’s status as the trademark's proprietor.

A Legal See-Saw: The Journey Through the Courts

The battle for control over the trademark's usage has seen a series of interim orders, with the balance of convenience shifting at each judicial level.

1. The Trial Court's Broad Injunction (January 9, 2025)

The first significant interim ruling came from the Pune Trial Court, which granted an injunction in favor of KBL. The court restrained KPL from licensing or assigning the 'Kirloskar' trademarks to any third party, which explicitly included other Kirloskar Group companies, pending the final disposal of the suit. This order effectively froze KPL’s ability to manage the trademark portfolio as it had intended.

2. The Bombay High Court's Partial Relief (July 25, 2025)

Aggrieved by the sweeping nature of the injunction, KPL appealed to the Bombay High Court. On July 25, 2025, a Division Bench of the High Court modified the Trial Court's order. Recognizing the intra-group nature of the arrangement, the High Court permitted KPL to license the marks to its member companies. However, this permission came with a crucial caveat: the license could not be for a business segment that overlapped with KBL's operations. The court maintained the bar on the assignment of the mark in these overlapping sectors but crucially allowed licensing . This order provided KPL with limited operational flexibility.

3. The High Court's Controversial Modification (October 10, 2025)

Months later, KBL, represented by Senior Advocates Dr. A M Singhvi and C Aryama Sundaram, approached the High Court again, filing an application for a "correction." On October 10, 2025, a different High Court bench heard the application and passed a modification order.

This order was brief but had a profound impact. It added the word "licensing" to the operative part of the restraint in the July 25 order. This seemingly minor addition effectively reversed the partial relief KPL had secured. The new order barred KPL from both assigning and licensing the trademark to any group company in sectors that competed with KBL. The injunction was now almost as restrictive as the original Trial Court order.

The Supreme Court's Intervention: A Question of Procedural Fairness

It was this October 10 modification that KPL challenged before the Supreme Court through a Special Leave Petition. KPL’s counsel argued that the High Court had erred by substantially expanding the scope of its earlier interim order under the guise of a "correction" or "modification." The core arguments were:

• The modification was not a mere clerical correction but a substantive expansion of the injunction.
• Such an expansion should not have been granted without fresh factual findings or a full hearing, especially while the main appeal against the Trial Court's order was still pending before the High Court.
• The October 10 order made the restriction far harsher than the July 25 ruling, prejudicing KPL's position without due process.

The Supreme Court bench found merit in these preliminary arguments. By staying the October 10 order, the Court has effectively reinstated the legal position as it stood after the July 25, 2025 order. This means, pending further orders, KPL is permitted to grant intra-group licenses for the 'Kirloskar' trademark, provided the business does not overlap with KBL’s.

The Court has issued notice to KBL and will now delve deeper into the legal and factual matrix of the dispute. The case, titled KIRLOSKAR PROPRIETARY LIMITED V KIRLOSKAR BROTHERS LIMITED (SLP (C) NO(S). 29662-29663/2025), is poised to become a key reference for practitioners on the law governing interim reliefs and the supervisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over the procedural conduct of lower courts in high-stakes corporate litigation.