For more intellectual property updates follow our WHATSAPP CHANNEL and SUNS LEGAL | LinkedIn
Written by Keerthana M, Advocate, and Verified by Sunil Jose, Managing Attorney, Suns Legal
Names matter, especially for businesses and brands. Naming your business or brand is a crucial step in building a new venture, as it creates a unique identity for your product or service. The case of Macrotech Developers Limited and Anr vs. House of Abhinandan Lodha Estate Holdings Private Limited and Ors (COMM(IP) 1526 of 2025) has been in the news recently due to a trademark dispute over the name “Lodha.”
The dispute is between Macrotech Developers Ltd. (Lodha Group) and House of Abhinandan Lodha Estate Holdings Pvt Ltd (HoABL). Brothers Abhishek Lodha and Abhinandan Lodha lead Macrotech and HoABL, respectively. They were both part of the Lodha Group until a split, after which Abhinandan Lodha started his own venture, HoABL. According to a family settlement agreement from 2017, Abhinandan was prevented from using the name “Lodha” for his business. However, its use continued, prompting Macrotech to initiate a suit for trademark infringement, seeking a perpetual injunction and 5000 crores in damages. The High Court of Bombay suggested mediation to resolve the dispute. Both parties accepted the suggestion, and the court appointed retired Supreme Court Judge R. V. Raveendran as the mediator.
Trademark disputes arise when there is a conflict over the use of a specific trademark. These disputes can occur between parties who each claim rights to a similar or identical trademark, often because the marks are likely to cause confusion among consumers. Section 2(i)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, defines “commercial disputes.” It includes disputes relating to intellectual property rights, such as registered and unregistered trademarks, copyright, patents, designs, domain names, geographical indications, and semiconductor integrated circuits. Section 12A of the Act deals with “Pre-institution mediation and settlement.” It states that all commercial disputes, except those seeking urgent interim relief, must undergo mediation before a suit is instituted. These provisions increase the scope for mediation and out-of-court settlements, thereby reducing the backlog of cases before the bench.
It is also important to note Section 89 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. This section enables the court to refer matters to alternative dispute resolution methods such as mediation. In The Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India, AIR 2005 SC 3353, the Supreme Court elaborated on the meaning of Section 89 and focused on establishing a uniform mediation process to be followed nationwide.
There have been numerous instances of trademark disputes being resolved through mediation. In the case of Nikhil Chawla vs. The Coca-Cola Company, CS (COMM) 312 of 2022, the plaintiff, who runs “COOKSTUDIO,” an online platform for food vlogging, producing food-related videos, and providing online culinary training, filed a suit seeking a declaration of non-infringement of the registered trademark “COKE STUDIO,” owned by the defendant company. The defendant had issued a notice to the plaintiff, demanding that he cease and desist from using the mark “COOK STUDIO” for his blog. The matter was amicably resolved through mediation, with an agreement that the plaintiff would adopt “Cook Pro 6” instead of “COOK STUDIO,” and the defendant would not interfere with the plaintiff’s use of the “Cook Pro 6” mark and its registration.
Mediation as a dispute resolution process saves time and money, ensures confidentiality, and gives parties significant control over the process—elements often missing in traditional litigation. However, it is not free from challenges; unequal bargaining power between the parties and non-compliance with settlement agreements by even one party can make the process difficult.
There wasn’t an exclusive statute regarding mediation until the enactment of the Mediation Act, 2023. This much-needed legislation streamlines the process by considering the evolving needs of the Indian legal landscape, where there is a significant delay in justice dispensation. It wouldn’t be wrong to say that the Salem Bar Association case (supra) paved the way for the development of the statute. The Act applies to civil and commercial disputes. Prominent features of the Act include provisions for “pre-litigation mediation” (Section 5) and a time limit for the conclusion of mediation proceedings. According to the Act, mediation must be concluded within 120 days from the first date of appearance and can be extended to 180 days if both parties agree.
Mediation as a method of conflict resolution has been practiced since ancient times. However, its application in the modern judicial system is relatively limited. It remains one of the most effective and efficient ways to resolve disputes. In Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. TVS Motor Company Ltd., JT 2009 (12) SC 103, the Madras High Court highlighted the benefits of mediation over litigation, particularly in intellectual property (IP) disputes. The court noted that in India, IP disputes often drag on for several years, primarily focusing on temporary injunctions. Therefore, it is crucial to explore the nuances of mediation as a method for dispute resolution, especially in trademark disputes. This approach can promptly safeguard the rights of intellectual property owners and significantly reduce the pendency of cases.