When most people think of inheritance, they picture family homes, cherished jewellery, or perhaps a well-stocked bank account. But in today’s knowledge-driven world, some of the most valuable legacies a family can pass on are invisible: trademarks, patents, copyrights, and trade secrets. For India’s iconic family-run brands think Haldiram, Amul, or PN Gadgil intellectual property (IP) is more than just a legal asset; it’s the secret sauce of their enduring success. In a country where family businesses are the backbone of the economy and inheritance laws reflect a tapestry of cultural traditions.
This article explores how IP can be inherited in India, why it matters for family businesses, and the legal and practical tools that help keep these treasures in the family.
Methods of transferring Intellectual Property
Intellectual property (IP) can be transferred through intestate succession, a will, trust arrangements, or formal agreements made during the owner’s lifetime. In the absence of a will, IP is distributed according to intestate succession laws, which may not align with the owner’s wishes often dividing assets among spouses, children, and parents. Making a will allows for clearer direction, but generic terms like “tangible personal property” may fail to cover IP rights specifically, risking unintended distribution through the residuary estate. To avoid such issues, precise language is essential in agreements. Additionally, trusts and formal agreements offer flexible options to transfer IP while the owner is alive, ensuring control over how these assets are managed and inherited. Careful planning and clear documentation are crucial to protect the value and intended use of intellectual property across generations[1].
How IP can enable family-run businesses
Brand Equity- Iconic brands like Haldiram, Amul, or PN Gadgil represent trust, quality, and tradition, not just logos, because they have built a reputation for home-grown reliability and consistent taste over decades. By protecting their IP’s, these family-run businesses lock in the goodwill they’ve earned, ensuring it can be passed down, untarnished, to future generations.
Monetization & Expansion: – Intellectual property lets family businesses expand through licensing and franchising, reaching new markets while keeping control. Heirs can license trademarks to others, creating new income and preserving the brand’s core values.
Continuity & Competitive Edge- In India, IP is inheritable movable property, allowing successors to receive both tangible and intangible business assets. This protects family businesses from imitators and helps preserve their legacy.
When family legacy meets Intellectual Property
Inheritance disputes over intellectual property are becoming increasingly prominent in Indian family businesses, where trademarks and brand names now rival ancestral homes as prized assets. These cases are leading examples, illustrating how courts and families navigate the complex overlap between legacy, ownership, and business continuity when valuable brands are at stake.
M/S. Sri. Krishna Sweets Pvt Ltd vs M/S Sri Krishna Sweets[2]
The Sri Krishna Sweets dispute involved brothers M. Krishnan and M. Murali, both claiming rights to the “Sri Krishna Sweets” trademark, which originated from their father’s business started in 1948. Krishnan registered the trademarks and managed their assignment within the family, while Murali, after leaving the company in 2010, continued using the name. When Krishnan demanded a formal license and Murali refused arguing the mark was a family inheritance. Krishnan sought a court injunction to stop Murali’s use of the brand
The courts found that both brothers traced the business’s origins to their father and that the mark had become associated with the family legacy over decades. The Madras High Court treated the dispute as a family matter, noting that, in the absence of a will or clear agreement, family trademarks are shared assets, and no single heir has exclusive rights. The court also observed that Krishnan’s attempts to disassociate the brand from the family after the dispute began were strategic and unconvincing. Ultimately, the court declined to grant an injunction, allowing both brothers to continue using the mark.
Shri Ram Education Trust vs. SRF Foundation[3]
This case involved a family dispute over the “SHRI RAM” trademark for schools. Both parties, descendants of Sir Shri Ram, ran educational institutions under the name. While the plaintiffs claimed exclusive rights due to prior use, the defendant argued the mark was a family legacy, giving all heirs equal rights to use it. The court held that, in the absence of a will or clear contrary evidence, all legal heirs have equal rights to use a family-owned trademark. Mere prior use by one heir does not exclude others from using the mark, especially when the brand’s goodwill and legacy are rooted in the family’s shared history. This approach underscores the principle that trademarks, like other family property, are subject to shared inheritance unless specifically partitioned or assigned.
Reliance Group – Ambani Brothers[4]
When Reliance Industries, one of India’s most prominent family businesses, was divided in 2006, the Ambani brothers Mukesh and Anil entered into a Trademark Management Agreement. This agreement set out the rules for using the “Reliance” name and logo after the business split. According to the terms, if a new business was started that wasn’t already reserved under an existing agreement, the right to use the Reliance trademark for that business would go to whichever brother started it first. This arrangement provided a clear framework to avoid future disputes and ensured that the legacy of the family brand could be managed without constant legal battles.
Lodha Group[5]
In 2015, the Lodha brothers, Abhishek and Abhinandan, parted ways, with Abhishek appointed CEO of Lodha Group (later Macrotech). A trademark lawsuit worth ₹5,000 crore was filed by Abhishek against Abhinandan’s company, House of Abhinandan Lodha (HoABL), alleging that HoABL’s branding was deceptively similar to the established ‘Lodha’ brand.The Bombay High Court treated the case as a family dispute and directed the parties to mediate. After three months, the brothers settled: Macrotech (Abhishek) retained exclusive rights to the ‘Lodha’ and ‘Lodha Group’ names, while Abhinandan gained exclusive rights to use ‘House of Abhinandan Lodha’ (HoABL), resolving the conflict amicably.
Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd[6]
The Parle case highlights the value of co-existence agreements, which are legal contracts between family members specifying how and by whom family IP can be used. When Parle Products and Parle Agro, both originating from the same family, used the “Parle” mark in different product lines, disputes arose as Parle Agro expanded into biscuits. The Bombay High Court ruled that, in the absence of a formal agreement, both companies could use the “Parle” name as long as there was no intent to mislead consumers. To prevent confusion, Parle Agro was required to label its products clearly and include a disclaimer about its lack of connection with Parle Products. This case demonstrates how co-existence agreements or clear court directions can prevent disputes, avoid consumer confusion, and respect the rights of all family members.
Recent cases demonstrate that Indian courts and families now view intellectual property in family businesses as a collective legacy, granting all heirs the right to use inherited IP, regardless of prior use. This shift underscores the importance of written agreements such as licensing agreements, family settlements, co-existence agreements, and Memorandums of Understanding which clearly define ownership, usage rights, and dispute resolution mechanisms. Licensing agreements are particularly valuable, enabling family members to use trademarks or other IP without transferring ownership, while setting terms for use, quality standards, and revenue sharing. These formal agreements help prevent disputes, protect consumer interests, and preserve the family legacy by ensuring transparency and clear differentiation within the business
Takeaways and Conclusion: Inheriting Intellectual Property (IP) in Indian Family Businesses
Courts in India increasingly recognize and uphold formal family settlements such as Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs), dissolution deeds, and trademark management agreements when resolving disputes over intellectual property. These agreements typically address the division of business interests, product lines, or territories, set clear terms for brand use, include non-interference clauses, and outline licensing arrangements. Having such formal agreements in place reduces the risk of disputes, clarifies the rights and responsibilities of each party, and preserves the family’s legacy and goodwill attached to the IP.
All parties are expected to maintain harmonious business relations and avoid actions that could harm another member’s interests, with legal recourse available in case of violations. Proactive and clear settlements save time and costs, protect the value of family IP, and allow each member to manage their business interests independently.
In conclusion, a thoughtful and strategic approach to IP inheritance is now essential for Indian family businesses seeking to preserve both legacy and commercial value. Legal precedents and recent disputes demonstrate that intellectual property is no longer a passive asset but a dynamic component of a family’s identity and growth strategy.
[1] file:///C:/Users/sjplp/Downloads/Dynamics-of-Intellectual-Property-in-Inheritance-Rights%20(1).pdf
[2] M/S. Sri. Krishna Sweets Pvt Ltd vs M/S Sri Krishna Sweets on 17 November, 2021
[3] Shri Ram Education Trust vs Srf Foundation & Anr. on 25 January, 2016
[4] https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/mukesh-anil-settle-trademark-issues/articleshow/1405354.cms
[6] Parle Products Private Limited vs Parle Agro Private Limited 18 December, 2008
Disclaimer: Image is generated via AI and does not represent any living person.
