Sanjay Kirloskar Can Continue Using 'Kirloskar' Name Brand, Says Pune Court
KBL argued that the agreements based on which KPL was taking such steps were unascertainable.
A Pune district court has provided relief to Sanjay Kirloskar run Kirloskar Brothers Ltd., allowing him to continue to use the 'Kirloskar' surname as their brand name. The direction came in a dispute hearing between the Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. and the Kirloskar Proprietary Ltd.
The trademarks were originally owned by KBL and were assigned to KPL in 1968 under a family arrangement to protect and promote the trademarks for the benefit of all the Kirloskar Group companies. KPL, established to deal with intellectual property, granted user licenses back to KBL and other group companies, under a series of agreements executed between 1969 and 2017.
KBL, being the flagship company of the Kirloskar Group, relied heavily on these trademarks for its manufacturing operations.
The cause of action came up in 2018, when KPL issued termination notices to KBL, saying that it had breached the terms of user agreements. As a result, KBL filed a case challenging KPL’s actions.
KBL argued that the agreements based on which KPL was taking such steps were unascertainable. KBL alleged that the trademarks were originally assigned to KPL under a family arrangement, and hence uninterrupted usage should be facilitated.
During the pendency of the suit, KPL attempted to withdraw the 2018 termination notices but issued fresh termination notices in July 2024, citing breaches such as non-payment of royalties, failure to provide turnover details in the prescribed format, and non-cooperation in quality audits.
KBL contested these claims and mentioned that any breaches were either trivial, caused by KPL’s inaction, or already dealt with.
It further argued that royalty payments were offered but refused by KPL, and any delays in providing information or allowing audits were due to KPL’s inclusion of a competitor in the audit team. KBL maintained that such actions by KPL violated the pre-decided family arrangement.
The Pune District Court, in its order dated Jan. 9, 2025, found that the agreements were deeply tied to a family-like arrangement, where KPL acted as a custodian of the trademarks. The court then rejected KPL’s claims of breaches and said that the alleged violations were trivial.
