In a fresh turn to the long-standing trademark tussle within the Kirloskar group, the Supreme Court on Friday stayed the Bombay High Court’s modified order that had restricted Kirloskar Proprietary Limited from licensing the “Kirloskar” trademark to its group companies. The bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed that such an expansion of restraint “ought not to have been passed” while the main appeal was still pending before the High Court.
Background
The dispute revolves around the use and licensing of the “Kirloskar” brand one of India’s most recognisable industrial names. Kirloskar Proprietary Limited (KPL), which holds ownership of the mark, was dragged to court by Kirloskar Brothers Limited (KBL), alleging that KPL’s licensing of the trademark to other group companies would create overlapping or competing interests.
Earlier this year, on January 9, 2025, the trial court had granted KBL’s plea for a temporary injunction, restraining KPL from assigning or licensing the trademark to any third party. However, the Bombay High Court, on July 25, 2025, partly relaxed that order, allowing KPL to issue licenses to its member companies provided they did not operate in overlapping business areas.
The matter didn’t end there. On October 10, 2025, the High Court modified its own order and extended the restraint to include licensing within the Kirloskar group as well essentially barring KPL from granting the trademark even to its own affiliates.
Court’s Observations
During Friday’s hearing, senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Balbir Singh appeared for KPL, while Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi and C. Aryama Sundaram represented KBL.
Rohatgi argued that the High Court’s modification had gone “far beyond” its earlier scope and practically paralysed the company’s ability to operate. He pointed out that while the High Court itself had recognised that KPL remained the undisputed proprietor of the Kirloskar trademark, it still restrained the owner from exercising basic licensing rights. “Assignment implies a transfer of ownership, but licensing is just permission to use it’s not the same thing,” he said.
On the other hand, Dr. Singhvi contended that the Kirloskar group had long maintained a tradition of avoiding internal competition and that the clarification order of October 10 merely reinforced that policy. He urged the court not to intervene while the High Court appeal remained pending.
Read Also:- Kerala High Court Quashes Liquor Theft Conviction, Citing Flawed Evidence and Lack of Independent
After listening to both sides, the bench remarked, “We are of the prima facie view that the order dated 10th October 2025, which expands the scope of the earlier restraint, ought not to have been passed when the appeal is pending.” The judges also noted that full facts regarding earlier licensing practices within the group were yet to be examined.
Decision
Accordingly, the Supreme Court issued notice to KBL, returnable on November 4, 2025, and stayed the operation of the October 10, 2025 order until further hearing. The stay effectively revives the High Court’s earlier July 25 order, which permitted limited licensing within the group.
Read Also:- Karnataka High Court Seeks State's Stand on Possible Tree Felling in Bengaluru's Lalbagh
The bench clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case at this stage. The matter will now return to the apex court after both parties file their affidavits and written submissions.
As of now, the Kirloskar trademark licensing battle continues with the next decisive hearing set for early November.
Case: Kirloskar Proprietary Limited vs Kirloskar Brothers Limited
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Case Type: Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 29662–29663 of 2025
Date of Order: October 17, 2025
