Bombay HC Protects Bombay Group's Rights to Use Vadilal Trademark
The Bombay High Court has granted interim protection to the Bombay Group in the Vadilal trademark dispute, restraining the Ahmedabad Group from blocking its use of the brand pending arbitration.
SociapaHQ
In a major development in the long-running family dispute over the brand, the Bombay High Court has granted interim relief to the Bombay Group of the Gandhi family, restraining the Ahmedabad Group from preventing it from using the iconic Vadilal trademark.
Justice Amit Borkar held that the Bombay Group had made out a prima facie case that its trademark rights arose from a permanent family settlement of 1993 and not from a commercial licence which could be terminated unilaterally.
The order was passed on a petition filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by Shailesh Gandhi, Bela Gandhi and Vadilal Dairy International, jointly representing the Bombay Group.
Also Read: BMW India Launches Monsoon Service Campaign Across Dealer Network
Family Settlement:
The dispute arose from a family settlement dated 30th March, 1993 by which the Gandhi family divided its businesses through four interlinked agreements- a Memorandum of Agreement (MoA), a branding agreement, an irrevocable power of attorney and a registered user agreement.
As per the arrangement, the Bombay Group was granted permanent and irrevocable rights for manufacturing and marketing Vadilal ice cream and fruit beverages in Maharashtra, Goa, Karnataka, Kerala and Telangana.
The conflict escalated on May 26, 2026, when Vadilal International, on behalf of the Ahmedabad Group, issued a notice of termination of the registered user agreement and cancellation of the irrevocable power of attorney. The Bombay Group challenged the move in the High Court contending it was a threat to dismantle its long established business and brand identity.
Also Read: Meta Debuts Kylie Jenner Smart Glasses Under New In-House Brand
Court Relief:
The Ahmedabad Group contended that on termination of the registered user agreement, there was no legal relationship between the parties and the court cannot revive a terminated commercial contract by granting interim relief.
But Justice Borkar dismissed that contention noting that the 1993 agreements were an integrated family settlement and not a string of independent commercial contracts.
The court found that the registered user agreement was merely a means of effectuating the broader family arrangement that split businesses, territories and trademark rights between the two branches of the family. It also found that the arbitration clause in the parent Memorandum of Agreement governed all disputes arising under the four related agreements.
The High Court also restrained the Ahmedabad Group from acting upon its termination notice dated May 26, and directed both parties to maintain the status quo pending arbitration.
The court further prohibited the Ahmedabad Group from using the Vadilal trademark within the Bombay Group's designated territories or creating any third-party rights, licences or commercial interests relating to the trademark in those markets.
