Understanding Family Trademarks


Trademarks serve to safeguard the distinctive characteristics that distinguish the origin of products under the ownership of a particular entity. This legal privilege is typically granted to those who have obtained registration or have been using such marks for a long period of time. Nonetheless, the subject at hand challenges this notion. Numerous well-known legal cases exemplify the characteristics and significance of these trademarks, as well as the rights that stem from their use or formal registration.

This issue pertains to the protection and use of a mark;however, the jurisdiction does not lie with the Trademark Act 1999. As the name might suggest,‘family trademarks’, fall under the purview of Family laws and are considered an asset that is passed on through generations.

Jurisprudence Behind

The jurisprudence behind this is – if tangible properties are divided so why shouldn’t the intangible ones too?

But before we delve in, we should answer the primary questions such as ‘Who all are considered as a family?’ to this the court has stated that the term family should be considered in a wider sense so as to include not only close relations or legal heirs but even those persons who may have some sort of antecedent title, a resemblance of a claim as per Kale & Ors. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others[1].

It will be unfair to give a sole proprietorship to a mark that has been used in family trade oruse has been between families, then in that case the trademark in such association gets divided between their heirs. However, for the specific divide of goodwill, one might want to prior indulge in the same, as there are high amounts of goodwill and reputation associated with marks associated with the family. However, if, prior arrangements are settled in any manner before the death of the proprietor, such needs are to be respected as has been laid in Rajni Dua & Ors vs Bhusan Kumar & Ors.[2], where such arrangements were considered which were made by late Mr. Gulshan Kumar reiterated through his handwritten notes and such arrangements were given a concrete shape in form of family arrangements.

[Image Sources : Shutterstock ]


In case such arrangements have not been made, then parallel rights and protection of each heir are to be considered as was laid in Darshan Lal Dhooper vs. Motia Rani & Ors.[3] In this case, the deed was dissolved stating that neither the petitioner nor the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 individually were to claim ownership over the mark ‘Plaza’, therefore, it was settled that such registrations were to take place jointly with the petitioner as well as the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, thus developing such stance from the doctrine of shared goodwill and common family legacy.

This very doctrine gave rise to the idea of disassociating family trademark disputes from the realm of trademarks. This can be traced from the case of Narasus’s Coffee Company Vs Narasu’s Roller Flour Mill[4] where the jurisdiction of such disputes were declared by the court in respect to family trademarks.

However, protection under family trademarks crumbles the moment rivalry or competition is proved between the two proprietors in association with the use of such trademarks. This was laid down in the case of M/s Power Control Appliance & Ors. v. Sumeet Machines Pvt. Ltd.[5]where the court observed,

41. It is a settled principle of law relating to trade mark that there can be only one mark, one source and one proprietor. It cannot have two origins. Where, therefore, the first defendant-respondent has proclaimed himself as a rival of the plaintiffs and as joint owner it is impermissible in law. Even then. the joint proprietors must use the trade mark jointly for the benefit of all. It cannot be used in rivalry and in competition with each other.”


  1. In the famous case of Sri Krishna Sweets Private Limited Vs. M. Murali[6] the plaintiff sought injunction of the defendant who was the brother, from using the mark ‘KRISHNA’ along with or without any appendages such as ‘SHRI’ or ‘SWEETS’-such a claim was resisted on the ground that their father had started a business in the name of ‘SHRI KRISHNA SWEETS’ in the year 1948 and such tradename belonged to their father and deserves to inherited by his two sons.it was also traced from various documents as well as the contents of the Website of both the plaintiff as well as thedefendant, it is seen that both the parties have traced their linage in the business to MahadevaIyer and he has been celebrated as the founder of ‘Mysore Pa’. Therefore, such injunction claims were refused consequently. This was considered an unfortunate case of sibling rivalry.
  2. In the case of SRF Foundation v Shri Ram Education Trust[7], the Plaintiff asserted exclusive rights to the ‘SHRI RAM’ mark, contending that it was initially utilized in 1988. He identified himself as a legal heir of the renowned Sir Shri Ram. However, during the trial, it emerged that the mark had its origins with their mutual ancestor, who employed it for prestigious educational institutions like Lady Shri Ram College and Shri Ram College of Commerce. Due to their shared family background, both sides possessed an equal entitlement to employ the family-associated trademarks. In light of the doctrine of shared goodwill and common family legacy, the Delhi High Court ruled that since both litigants were connected by lineage, they held mutual rights to the trademark. As a result, one party could not prohibit the other from its usage.
  3. Parle Products v. Parle Agro[8] dealt with a situation where both parties came from the same family business operating under the brand name “Parle.” The ancestors of both the Plaintiff and the Defendant were involved in manufacturing biscuits and beverages. Both parties had the right to use the common trademark “PARLE” alongside their own specific product marks. Initially, they divided their operations, with one focusing on biscuits and the other on beverages. Later, they both independently ventured into their respective areas, while remaining in the food and beverage industry. Plaintiff concentrated on biscuits, while Defendant turned to beverages.

However, in 2007 a dispute arose when Defendant expanded its business to include biscuits, which was objected to by Plaintiff. The central issue was whether Defendant could use the “Parle” trademark along with its new biscuit products in a way that might confuse consumers about the origin of the products.

The court stated and concluded that there was no formal agreement between the parties that prevented them from entering each other’s business areas. The court also recognized that former partners or employees who establish competing businesses have the right to acknowledge their previous association, as long as it’s clear that the connection is historical and not ongoing. However, the court required Parle Agro to make it clear that its products were distinct from those of Parle Products.


The cases reflect the jurisprudence and the line of thought maintained by the courts in India. These cases are very critically analysed due to their sensitivity. However, in regard to the doctrine of shared goodwill and common family legacy, courts have successfully portrayed a trend in resolving disputes involving family trademarks.

Author: Soumi Lahiri, A Student at University of Petroleum and Energy Studies, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to chhavi@khuranaandkhurana.com or at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney.

[1] Kale &Ors. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others 1976 AIR 807

[2]RajniDua&Ors vs Bhusan Kumar & Ors.77 (1999) DLT 392

[3]Darshan Lal Dhooper vs. MotiaRani &Ors. 99 (2002) DLT 792

[4]Narasus’s Coffee Company Vs Narasu’s Roller Floru MillO.S.A.Nos.234 to 237 of 2008

[5] M/s Power Control Appliance &Ors. v. Sumeet Machines Pvt. Ltd. (1994) 2 SCC 448

[6] Sri Krishna Sweets Private Limited Vs. M. Murali(2017) 8 Mad LJ 588

[7] SRF Foundation v Shri Ram Education Trust (2016)182PLR3

[8]Parle Products Private Limited Vs Parle Agro Private Limited 2021 SCC OnLineBom 5274

Leave a Reply



  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010