Lodha trademark row: Retired SC judge appointed mediator in feud between Maharashtra minister Mangal Prabhat Lodha’s sons

A single-judge bench of Justice Arif S Doctor has been hearing an interim application by Macrotech Developers of Abhishek Lodha seeking ad interim relief in its trademark infringement suit to restrain HoABL of his younger brother, from using the ‘Lodha’ trademark pending the hearing of the matter.

The origin of the dispute

Abhinandan parted ways with Lodha Group in 2015 and started HoABL and the separation was formalised on the basis of a family settlement agreement in 2017.

Macrotech claimed that due to non-compliance with the 2017 agreement, a new agreement was signed between the two parties in December 2023, which, as per Macrotech expressly prohibited Abhinandan from using a name similar to Lodha.

Macrotech and Digirealty Technologies Pvt Ltd in their suit sought a perpetual injunction against infringing on their registered trademarks and sought through an application an ad-interim injunction pending hearing of the suit. They claimed the infringement by HoABL resulted in the loss or damage provisionally estimated to be more than Rs 5,000 crore due to the use of the ‘Lodha’ by HoABL.

On Friday, senior advocate Janak Dwarkadas representing Abhishek Lodha on instructions from the client submitted that he is willing to make an attempt to resolve the trademark dispute through mediation process.

Senior advocate Darius Khambata for Macrotech suggested that all parties be part of the mediation and not merely the two brothers.

On consent of the parties, the High Court appointed retired Justice R V Raveendran as sole mediator in an attempt for resolution of the dispute arisen between the parties to the suit

“However I clarify that it would be open for parties to place before mediator all such issues that are presently subsisting between them,” it added.

The bench suggested that the mediator at first stage can make an attempt to resolve the dispute between two brothers. “If the two brothers sit down and resolve and if a dispute between two brothers gets settled, everything gets settled,” the judge orally remarked.

“However, this would not in any manner mean that any parties to the suit shall be excluded in any manner excluded from mediation proceedings,” the judge noted.

The bench noted that “it shall be open to mediator after holding first a meeting with Abhinandan Lodha and Abhishek Lodha as to issue appropriate directions for inclusion of all parties in the suit.”

“Needless to state that mediation proceedings are without prejudice to rights and contention to all parties to the dispute,” the court said.

The bench further requested the mediator to ‘expeditiously conclude’ the mediation proceedings, preferably within five weeks. Posting the next hearing in the matter to March 21 to decide on granting ad-interim relief, the HC said that in the event if the mediation is not successful, the replies to the interim application to be filed before the said date.

“Needless to say that if the mediator requires extension of period after noticing the mediation is proceeding satisfactorily, the prescribed time can be extended accordingly,” the bench stated.