**Mumbai:** The Calcutta High Court has permitted Kirloskar Proprietary Ltd (KPL) to take on the role of plaintiff in the trademark infringement case concerning the Kirloskar brand. Previously, KPL was a defendant in a lawsuit initiated by Kirloskar Brothers Ltd (KBL) aimed at safeguarding four registered trademarks associated with the ‘Kirloskar’ name. The ruling on January 27 now positions KPL to more effectively assert its rights in the case.
In response to the high court’s decision, KBL has submitted a special leave petition to the Supreme Court, contesting the order that allowed KPL to switch from defendant to plaintiff. KBL argued that KPL, as the registered owner of the trademarks, did not take sufficient legal action against third-party infringements, prompting KBL, as the registered user of these marks, to file the lawsuit. KBL contended that it holds stronger rights than a non-exclusive user and sought to claim common law rights over the “Kirloskar” mark, asserting that there is no legal basis for its transposition to the plaintiff side.
KPL countered that while the lawsuit aims to protect the “Kirloskar” mark, it could misrepresent KBL’s actual rights and denied the claim that it failed to act against infringements.
**Court’s Rationale for Transposition**
Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur underscored the necessity of fair adjudication regarding the protection of the “Kirloskar” marks. The order stated that both KBL and KPL share an interest in defending the trademarks from third-party infringers. The court noted that moving KPL from the defendant to the plaintiff category would not change the nature of the suit or disadvantage any party involved.
“Both parties seek to protect the mark ‘Kirloskar’. This is the real and only object of the suit. Both parties are making the same claim against the remaining defendants. The success of one is the success of the other,” the court remarked. Justice Kapur further stated, “KPL has a superior right of ownership and legal standing compared to KBL as a registered user. KPL also has a legitimate interest in this dispute.”
The court emphasized that the transposition would ensure the suit does not serve any ulterior motives or prejudice KPL’s rights. Consequently, the court denied KBL’s request for a stay on the order, facilitating KPL’s transition to the plaintiff role in the case.
**Implications**
This trademark infringement case is not the only legal conflict between KBL and KPL regarding the use of the “Kirloskar” mark. The parties are also engaged in litigation in the Pune civil court and the Bombay High Court, where KBL asserts its right to use the “Kirloskar” mark based on various user agreements. Legal experts have commented on the decision, indicating that the transposition will enable KPL, as the rightful registered owner of the trademarks, to take the lead in the proceedings.