The ongoing authorized spat between the Lodha brothers over utilizing “Lodha” model has as soon as once more introduced the query to the limelight — can a family surname be monopolised as a trademark and if that’s the case, who has the rightful declare?
The Lodha vs. Lodha Intellectual Property Right (IPR) dispute case has been referred to a court-appointed mediation course of. The warring brothers might not budge simply on condition that proudly owning a model identify can imply proudly owning the market itself.
While this may increasingly appear to be a basic family dispute, Indian courts have dominated on related points up to now.
Surname as the model identify
One of the earliest rulings was within the Bajaj Electricals Ltd vs. Metals and Allied Products case. Though the house owners of each corporations had the identical surname, the court docket had dominated in favour of Bajaj Electricals, stating that the identify was strongly related to their enterprise. The court docket held that its unauthorised use might mislead customers. Thus, setting a precedent that a surname can be protected if it has robust market recognition.
An identical case was upheld within the Kirloskar Diesel Recon Pvt. Ltd. vs. Kirloskar Proprietary Ltd. case. The court docket had dominated that even family members couldn’t use the Kirloskar identify if it created confusion out there.
In Lodha brothers’ case too, if one can show that the Lodha model has gained distinctiveness solely beneath his management, the court docket might prohibit the opposite from utilizing it for actual property ventures.
“Indian courts have upheld that a surname, when strongly associated with a business, deserves trademark protection. If [Abhishek Lodha’s] Macrotech proves that ‘Lodha’ in real estate is tied to its brand through market recognition and goodwill, exclusivity should follow,” stated Prathamesh Kamat, Counsel, Bombay High Court.
“Allowing others to use it risks consumer confusion and brand dilution—an outcome courts have consistently prevented,” he added.
Who has the historic declare?
In the Montari Overseas vs Montari Industries case, the court docket had granted an injunction stopping Montari Overseas from utilizing the ‘Montari’ identify, reinforcing that related enterprise names might create confusion. The court docket famous that Montari Industries was established first and Montari Overseas couldn’t present a credible rationalization for the adoption of the identify.
In the Lodha dispute, the brother with a stronger historic declare to the model might be granted unique rights.
“When a family name is used as a recognised brand, especially in a publicly listed company like Macrotech, protecting its integrity and exclusivity is not just about trademarks—it’s also about safeguarding investor trust and minority shareholder interests,” stated Nitin Potdar, former Corporate and M&A Partner, JSA.
“Allowing any infringement or use of the ‘Lodha’ name in real estate could create confusion, impacting brand value along with its associated goodwill and shareholder confidence, which courts have consistently sought to prevent,” he added.
Market dominance issues
Yet one other case is the Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd vs Mahendra and Mahendra Paper Mills. The court docket had dominated that ‘Mahindra and Mahindra’ had acquired a secondary which means past its surname origins. “Mahendra & Mahendra” clearly infringes the commerce identify “Mahindra and Mahindra” that’s doing enterprise for greater than 5 a long time, the Supreme Court famous in an enchantment.
The resolution bolstered the precept that even when a surname is comparable, its robust affiliation with a specific enterprise grants it authorized safety.
Whether the court docket will permit each Lodha brothers to proceed utilizing the model or grant exclusivity to one among them stays to be seen. But the end result of this case is prone to be formed by authorized priority on such issues, it might very seemingly additionally form the way forward for surname-based emblems in India.
Published – February 22, 2025 04:24 pm IST
