Big news is coming from Bombay, where the Bombay High Court has supported Kirloskar Proprietary Limited’s (KPL) right to use and manage the ‘Kirloskar’ brand name. Earlier, the Pune court had stopped KPL from giving permission to others to use the brand, but the High Court has now allowed it again.
What Led to the Bombay High Court Battle Over the ‘Kirloskar’ Trademark
The case started in 2018, when Kirloskar Proprietary Limited (KPL)—the company that has a trademark of the “Kirloskar” word- asked other group companies to sign updated trademark agreements. The trademark agreement allowed Kirloskar group companies to use the ‘Kirloskar’ brand name with permission from Kirloskar Proprietary Limited (KPL), the official trademark owner.
One of those companies, Kirloskar Brothers Limited (KBL), refused to sign the new agreement. KBL claimed that it had permanent and exclusive rights to use the “Kirloskar” name for its business and didn’t need permission from KPL. As a result, KBL filed a case in the Pune District Court in 2018, asking the court to stop KPL from giving the Kirloskar brand license to anyone else.
On January 9, 2025, the Pune District Court issued a temporary injunction. The Pune court gave this order as an interim measure to protect KBL’s claim that it had permanent rights to the brand. The court’s intention was to maintain the current situation.
After this, KPL went to the Bombay High Court, where the case was heard between July 25 and 27, 2025. After the hearings, the High Court changed the Pune court’s decision and allowed KPL to use the ‘Kirloskar’ brand and license it. But the court added a condition: KPL must not grant licenses in business areas that directly compete with KBL, such as pumps and valves.
Read Aslo:-IIIT-H Professor Patents Unique Dice-Based Dance Teaching Tool
Why the Bombay High Court Upheld KPL’s Rights Over the ‘Kirloskar’ Brand
There are multiple reasons for the Bombay High Court’s decision, and we should know that for a better understanding of this case.
- KPL is the official owner of the ‘Kirloskar’ trademark.
- KBL had no legal proof of exclusive or permanent rights.
- The Pune court’s order was too broad and blocked KPL’s rightful authority.
- Courts should not change legal rights during interim stages—only maintain the current situation.
- But KPL cannot give licenses in areas where it would compete directly with KBL (like pumps and valves).
What’s Next in the Fight Over the Kirloskar Brand?
The next hearing in this case will take place in the Bombay High Court on August 11, 2025. A decision can give full rights to the KPL. Alternatively, it may choose to impose permanent restrictions to protect KBL’s core business areas, such as pumps and valves. There is also a possibility that both companies may reach a mutual agreement or settlement outside of court before a final judgment is passed.
Why IPR Was Crucial in the Kirloskar Trademark Battle
- Protects Legal Ownership:
IPR confirms who legally owns the ‘Kirloskar’ trademark. This avoids confusion or false claims by any group company. - Controls Brand Usage:
It ensures only authorized parties can use the brand name. This protects the brand’s reputation and customer trust. - Prevents Internal Conflicts:
IPR helps resolve disputes within family or group businesses. It sets clear rules on who can use what and where. - Promotes Fair Competition:
Restricting overlapping usage avoids unfair business advantages. This keeps competition healthy within the group.
Conclusion
The Kirloskar trademark case shows how important IPR is in protecting brand rights, preventing misuse, and maintaining fairness within business groups. Clear ownership and legal agreements are key to avoiding conflicts over shared names.
Read Also:- Patent Agent Exam 2026 Registration Last Date