Breaking News: Toyota Loses Trademark Battle over Prius at Indian Supreme Court

Dec 2022

The plaintiff, in this case, is Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha and they seek to prevent the defendant, a spare parts supplier by the name M/S Prius Auto Industries Limited, from the usage of the trademarks- “Toyota”, “Innova”, and “Prius”.

According to the finding of the court, two of the three trademarks mentioned, namely Toyota and Innova were registered trademarks of the plaintiff and the lower court hearing the case had no issue in finding the favor of Toyota in this count. Interestingly, the defendants did not contest these findings in the Supreme Court.

The contest was over the trademark, “Prius” in which the plaintiff claimed that it belonged exclusively to them. According to the finding, the plaintiff had no trademark registration for “Prius” in India and on the other side, the defendant had their registration with the same name dating back to 2002 in India. The plaintiff Toyota challenged that they had been using the trademark as early as 1997 and that the defendants had wrongly and dishonestly registered the same name in India.

The Supreme Court has to decide upon if the plaintiff could still claim the trademark of being a prior user of the name despite the defendants’ registration of Prius as their trademark.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendant with the view that the Plaintiff had not supplied enough evidence of the reputation of the mark “Prius” in the Indian market. The court held that merely because Prius is a well-known name outside India, it does not necessarily mean that it enjoys a reputation in India as well. Its reputation in the local milieu needs to be proved as well.

The court’s ruling took the trademark law to its foundational roots by blunting the pervasive overreach of the trans-border reputation doctrine. Besides, there are other two things worth noting from the above ruling of the court.

  • The court sticks strongly to the view that mere reputation alone does not suffice for a passing off action and one needs to demonstrate local goodwill, which at the least means that there must be some customers within the local jurisdiction.
  • The apex court ruled that proof of actual confusion is often difficult to adduce and therefore the likelihood of confusion was the appropriate test, even at the interim stage.

This particular case on the context of legal legibility, the decision is supposedly quietly high,however, on certain legal aspects, the decision could have done far better.

Trending Blogs
Blockchain Technology: Is it Building a Brighter Future
What is Blockchain Technology? The Blockchain is an incorruptible digital ledger of transactions that can be programmed to record virtually everything of value. So a blockchain is a continuously growing list of records called blocks, which are linked and secured. It protects the identities of the users. Although transactions on the blockchain are not completely […]
Read More
Trademarking surnames
Having difficult surnames may be challenging to explain others and also when you want to register the name as trademark. As per the trademark and merchandise act of 1958, it is stated that a mark can be refused if one choose a personal name or surname. Though, there is no such clear specification in the […]
Read More
Liability Of Internet Service Providers In Digital Environment
Isp Liability In India: Internet Service Providers (ISPs) can be liable for the content on the sites they host. They can be liable even if they were merely passively hosting the site, unless they take down the objectionable material when they receive notice of it. The Copyright Act and the Information Technology Act includes the […]
Read More
The Clash Of Jurisdiction Of CCI And TRAI
Overlapping Jurisdiction The Competition Act, 2002 read with section 18 of the legislation delegates to the Competition Commission of India (the “CCI”) the duty of “promoting and sustaining competition” in the Indian economy. This implies that the CCI will have principal jurisdiction to regulate conditions of competition in the relevant market of India. Whereas, Section […]
Read More
Copyrights of Music in India
Music is an art more specifically an intangible form of art. Copyrighting a song or a melody protects the basic right of the creator. The copyright also assist the creator financially. In order to ask for copyright the creator needs to file a registration. Once the creator gains the copyright, any infringement to the copyrighted […]
Read More
Pharma Companies File 15% of Patents in India
The Indian Pharma industry is primarily known for its Generic Drugs. But recently, to push its value higher in the market, the Indian pharmaceutical industry is investing more in research and development of new drugs along with increasing the potency of the existing ones to move up the value chain. From 2013-2015, out of the […]
Read More
The Big Push to Reform Music Copyright for the Digital Age
Music creators of the present digital age should be aware of the copyright issues better due to different reasons. Music is made available on different websites, and it is necessary to prevent the increasing problem of infringement. Pertaining to this, a number of bills are proposed in Congress that can enhance royalty payment for the […]
Read More
Need for Kashmiri Saffron to get the GI tag
The Kashmiri Saffron has been given geographical indication tag recently from Lieutenant Governor G C Murmu. The acquiring of GI tag is a step ahead in bringing the brand among the list of top ones. The tag has been given for the saffron grown in Kashmir. In this regard, it can be said that the […]
Read More
Intellectual Property and its Role in the Pharmaceutical Industry
Intellectual property rights are considered to be an important asset of any corporate unit. It is an indication of the creation of mind and the work that makes one entity different from the other. With better IP or intellectual rights, it would be easy to promote the possible innovations and this would be useful in […]
Read More
PTAB Should Not Disapprove Claims on the Grounds of Indefiniteness in IPR
Federal Circuit has disapproved of arguments of claims that show any reason other than anticipation pertaining to party procedures. Federal Circuit has rejected the challenge shown by Samsung Electronics America, Inc. The company challenged that PTAB can disapprove claims that are considered indefinite in IPR. Samsung has been charged on the grounds of infringing U.S. […]
Read More
X
Download Firm Profile