Abhinandhan Lodha and Abhishek Lodha.
| Photo Credit: The Hindu
The ongoing legal spat between the Lodha brothers over using “Lodha” brand has once again brought the question to the limelight — can a family surname be monopolised as a trademark and if so, who has the rightful claim?
The Lodha vs. Lodha Intellectual Property Right (IPR) dispute case has been referred to a court-appointed mediation process. The warring brothers may not budge easily given that owning a brand name can mean owning the market itself.
While this may seem like a classic family dispute, Indian courts have ruled on similar issues in the past.
Surname as the brand name
One of the earliest rulings was in the Bajaj Electricals Ltd vs. Metals and Allied Products case. Though the owners of both firms had the same surname, the court had ruled in favour of Bajaj Electricals, stating that the name was strongly associated with their business. The court held that its unauthorised use could mislead consumers. Thus, setting a precedent that a surname can be protected if it has strong market recognition.
A similar case was upheld in the Kirloskar Diesel Recon Pvt. Ltd. vs. Kirloskar Proprietary Ltd. case. The court had ruled that even family members couldn’t use the Kirloskar name if it created confusion in the market.
In Lodha brothers’ case too, if one can prove that the Lodha brand has gained distinctiveness solely under his leadership, the court may restrict the other from using it for real estate 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,” said 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 historical claim?
In the Montari Overseas vs Montari Industries case, the court had granted an injunction preventing Montari Overseas from using the ‘Montari’ name, reinforcing that similar business names could create confusion. The court noted that Montari Industries was established first and Montari Overseas couldn’t provide a credible explanation for the adoption of the name.
In the Lodha dispute, the brother with a stronger historical claim to the brand may be granted exclusive 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,” said 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 matters
Yet another case is the Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd vs Mahendra and Mahendra Paper Mills. The court had ruled that ‘Mahindra and Mahindra’ had acquired a secondary meaning beyond its surname origins. “Mahendra & Mahendra” clearly infringes the trade name “Mahindra and Mahindra” that is doing business for more than five decades, the Supreme Court noted in an appeal.
The decision reinforced the principle that even if a surname is similar, its strong association with a particular business grants it legal protection.
Whether the court will allow both Lodha brothers to continue using the brand or grant exclusivity to one of them remains to be seen. But the outcome of this case is likely to be shaped by legal precedence on such matters, it could very likely also shape the future of surname-based trademarks in India.
Published – February 22, 2025 04:24 pm IST
