The Supreme Court has granted significant relief to Kirloskar Proprietary Ltd (KPL) by staying a modified order from the Bombay High Court. The order in question, issued on October 10, 2025, had previously restrained KPL from licensing the prominent ‘Kirloskar’ trademark to other entities within the group, particularly those operating in similar or competing sectors. A division bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan, in their decision made public on Saturday, expressed a prima facie view that the October 10 order, an expansion of an earlier restraint from July 25, 2025, should not have been passed while the core appeal remains pending and without a thorough examination of the group’s historical licensing practices.

The 'Kirloskar' trademark, a symbol of industrial heritage, has a legacy dating back to the 1920s, when it was widely used by various Kirloskar group firms. By 1965, however, the founding family recognized the need for unified control over the brand’s use and integrity. This led to the establishment of KPL, which was specifically mandated to serve as the custodian of the trademark, ensuring its judicious management for the collective benefit of all Kirloskar entities.

The legal dispute at the heart of this matter originated from a plea filed by Sanjay Kirloskar, the owner of Kirloskar Brothers Ltd (KBL), with the Bombay High Court. KBL sought an injunction to prevent Kirloskar Proprietary Ltd from continuing its trademark licensing activities. In a significant ruling on July 25, 2025, however, a bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice M.S. Karnik declined KBL’s request. The court observed that there was “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.” The bench further underscored that “Even as per Kirloskar Brothers’ own case, the use of Kirloskar marks was never intended to be, nor is it, exclusive to one company.”

Despite this ruling, the legal landscape shifted on October 10, 2025, when the Bombay High Court modified its earlier order. Acting on an interim application from KBL, the court explicitly barred KPL from granting or transferring the “Kirloskar” trademark rights to other group companies operating in sectors considered similar or competitive.

The roots of this broader conflict can be traced back to the period between 2015 and 2018, when KPL, acting on legal advice, decided to revise its long-standing user agreements concerning the trademark. On April 2, 2018, KPL formally requested that KBL and other group companies sign these new trademark agreements. KBL refused, opting instead to file a civil suit in Pune, thereby igniting the protracted legal battle that continues to this day. In June 2024, KBL sought registered user status for the trademark, an action KPL claims violated earlier agreements. This prompted KPL to issue a breach notice, which KBL subsequently challenged in court.

The dispute escalated further on January 9, when the Pune court granted KBL broad interim protection, effectively preventing KPL from issuing any new licenses for the trademark. KPL promptly appealed, arguing that the lower court’s order disrupted established governance structures and prejudiced other group firms reliant on the Kirloskar name. In its review, the High Court largely sided with KPL’s position on this specific appeal before the Supreme Court’s latest intervention.