Supreme Court Stays Bombay High Court Order in Kirloskar Trademark Licensing Dispute.


17 October 2025 Trademark Registration >> Intellectual Property Rights  

The Supreme Court of India, on October 17, 2025, issued a significant interim order in the high-stakes commercial dispute between Kirloskar Proprietary Limited (KPL) and Kirloskar Brothers Limited (KBL). The bench of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manoj Misra and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan heard the challenge arising out of Special Leave Petitions (C) No. 29662-29663/2025 against interim orders passed by the Bombay High Court concerning the licensing and assignment of the iconic 'Kirloskar' trademark.

The Core Dispute: Trademark Rights and Injunction

The case is based on a suit by KBL (the Respondent/Plaintiff), for, inter alia, a temporary injunction to prevent the Defendant, KPL (the Petitioner), from raising any third-party interest, such as licensing or assignment of the Kirloskar trademarks subject to certain group agreements.
The trial court, on January 9, 2025, granted this interim injunction application initially. KPL contested this order before the Bombay High Court.

 

 

The High Court's Contradictory Orders:

The Bombay High Court's hearings led to two pivotal and, perhaps, conflicting orders:

Order of July 25, 2025: This order mainly suspended the trial court's injunction. It placed a limited restriction to the effect that although KPL may issue a license for the use of the Kirloskar mark by its member companies, it "shall not assign the mark to other Kirloskar group of companies for use in respect of similar/overlapping business of Kirloskar Brothers."

Order dated October 10, 2025 (Modification): This modification order corrected or altered the July 25th order, significantly widening the sweep of the restraint. The modification injuncted KPL not just from assignment but even from licensing the trademark to group companies for similar/overlapping business with KBL.

The Interim Intervention of the Supreme Court:

KPL's Senior Counsel, Mr. Mukul Rohatgi and Mr. Balbir Singh, argued that the July 25th order of the High Court was intrinsically conflicting. They argued that as there was no contention over KPL's ownership of the trademark and that the privilege of licensing is not like assignment which involves transfer, the later amendment was excessive and unjustified, particularly because the significant appeal against the order of the trial court was pending before the High Court.

Senior Counsel for KBL, Dr. A.M. Singhvi, replied that the amendment only fulfilled the traditional group practice of avoiding conflicting interests and urged the Supreme Court not to intervene at this juncture.

The Apex Court's Prima Facie View:

Having weighed the opposing submissions, the Supreme Court, with a studious reluctance to form any opinion on the ultimate merits of the case, enunciated a clear prima facie view:
"We are of the prima facie opinion that the order dated 10th October 2025, enlarging the ambit of the restraint granted previously vide order dated 25th July 2025, should not have been passed when the appeal is pending for hearing."
The Court observed that the amendment was passed without a complete deliberation of the facts, especially regarding any previous licensing of the mark in the group companies.

The Final Order:

Given this initial evaluation, it was felt by the Supreme Court that it should intervene provisionally. The Court issued notice, returnable November 4, 2025, and gave the operative order:
  • The effect and operation of the order dated October 10, 2025, whereby the previous order dated July 25, 2025, was amended, stand stayed.
  • This vital interim stay implies that the initial position of the July 25, 2025, order of the High Court—allowing licensing to member companies while restraining assignment to others doing similar/overlapping business—is restored, giving an immediate relief to KPL on the question of licensing until the next date of hearing. The case stands scheduled for further hearing on November 4, 2025.