The Bombay High Court has modified its interim order dated July 25, in the ongoing Kirloskar trademark dispute by adding the phrase “or licensing” to the order. The court has restrained Kirloskar Proprietary (KPL) from licensing or assigning the “Kirloskar” trademarks to other Kirloskar Group companies engaged in competing or overlapping businesses.
This modification follows an interim application filed by Kirloskar Brothers (KBL) seeking a correction of the original order.
Earlier, the Bombay High Court had issued a limited stay on a Pune District Court ruling in the trademark case. That order had prohibited KPL from assigning or licensing the “Kirloskar” trademarks to other Kirloskar Group companies involved in similar or overlapping businesses as KBL.
[img=1px,1px]https://data.indianexpress.com/election2019/track_1x1.jpg[/img]ALSO READSebi upholds shareholder rights to Kirloskar Group’s privacy
The dispute involves Atul and Rahul Kirloskar, who lead KPL, and Sanjay Kirloskar, who controls KBL, over the ownership and use of the “Kirloskar” trademark. To safeguard the Kirloskar brand, it was decided in 1965 — based on legal advice — to place the “Kirloskar” trademark under KPL, which was designated to centrally own and protect the mark as a trustee for the benefit of all Kirloskar Group companies.
In 2016–17, Atul and Rahul Kirloskar, managing KPL, sought to execute new Trademark User Agreements. KBL refused to sign, leading KPL to terminate its User Agreement with KBL. This termination was challenged by KBL before the Pune Commercial Court. In 2018, KPL again sought to terminate the User Agreement, prompting KBL to contest the move in court in July 2018.
ALSO READBombay HC rejects Anil Ambani plea against SBI ‘fraud’ tag on Reliance Communications
In July 2024, Kirloskar Proprietary again attempted to terminate the Trade Mark License/User Agreement. KBL filed an interim application as part of the 2018 suit to challenge this communication. On January 9, the Pune District Court ruled that the consideration for KBL’s historical assignment of its trademarks to KPL was not a one-time event but a continuing right to use the trademarks.
The court subsequently restrained KPL from taking any action to terminate the Trademark License/User Agreements pending the hearing and final resolution of the suit. In response, KPL appealed to the Bombay High Court against the Pune District Court’s order and sought a stay on the January 9 ruling. The Bombay High Court granted an interim stay on July 25. KBL then approached the Bombay High Court to request a correction or modification of this order.
|
