Lodha Group Dispute: Macrotech Accuses HoABL of Using Fake Documents Over Brand Name

Quick Summary

• Macrotech Developers, led by Abhishek Lodha, has accused House of Abhinandan Lodha (hoabl) of using falsified documents to misuse the ‘Lodha’ brand name and registered trademark.
• Macrotech Developers filed a lawsuit in the Bombay High Court in January,alleging trademark infringement and seeking damages against HoABL.
• The dispute involves business entities linked to two brothers: abhishek Lodha (Macrotech Developers) and Abhinandan Lodha (HoABL).
• Macrotech alleges that HoABL used fabricated board resolutions containing false “no objection” statements for trademark usage while filing them with government authorities.
• The signatures on these fabricated documents allegedly differ from the actual signatures of an self-reliant director. A PAN card attached was reportedly altered with fake details as evidence.
• At least two HoABL firms allegedly changed their corporate names to begin with ‘Lodha,’ leveraging these falsified documents. These names were then deployed for business operations in residential plot progress across major cities by HoABL.
• Macrotech’s Board has formed a Special Committee of Directors to manage legal actions related to this matter, excluding CEO Abhishek Lodha from the group at his request.

Indian Opinion Analysis
This legal battle highlights deeper issues concerning intellectual property rights and corporate governance within family-driven businesses prevalent in India’s real estate sector.While details remain under judicial consideration, accusations involving falsification of official documents call serious attention toward verification processes at regulatory bodies handling trademarks or corporate name assignments.

For India’s business ecosystem, such disputes underscore the critical importance of safeguarding established brands through rigorous oversight mechanisms while ensuring ethically sound practices between competing entities-particularly when they share familial ties but diverge professionally.

The implications could extend beyond immediate reputational risks or financial damages; they may also test how regulatory frameworks respond efficiently when serious allegations surface involving high-profile companies operating on similar branding turf.Read More: Economic Times