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
Protection of Acronyms under Trademark Law
It is known that acronyms are the first letters of a long phrase of words combined together. On the other hand, trademark is about a mark that shall help distinguish the product or service of goods or service from the rest of the items. Therefore, it can be said that an acronym can be registered […]
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
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
Copyright Issues Involving Music
For a music composer, lyricist, a producer, or any performer, protecting music is a big concern under the U.S. copyright protection laws. By copyright, it indicates legal protection that is offered to the original work of music of the creator from others to use it by their name. The copyright law shall prevent others from […]
Read More
Intellectual Property Rights in the Era of Counterfeit Goods
The industry of counterfeited products has taken shape due to the desire of customers to get hands-on high quality item at reasonable rates. They have great satisfaction in this and this is where the counterfeited goods are made available in the market. Different world markets are full of counterfeited products ranging from cosmetics, electronics, footwear, […]
Read More
Why Are Drug Patents Important Everything You Need to Know?
Before you ask for the importance of patent in the Pharmaceutical world, let us first learn about Patents. After a song is recorder, the song is approached by various music production companies who would like to rent the copyright of the song for marketing purpose and earn profit from it. And patent is almost similar, […]
Read More
Drug Patents and Generic Pharmaceutical Drugs
When a drug is manufactured and released to the market in the initial period, it is sold under a certain brand names and can only be availed from a pharmacy after being prescribed by the doctor. The patent of the drug is owned by a few brands who are the only eligible brands to manufacture […]
Read More
The Common Law Protection Of Trade Secrets And The Need For A Statue
Introduction: A trade secret is anything you use in your business that gives you an advantage over your competitors. A trade secret can be a recipe, process, formula, strategy, technique or device that your competitors do not know, do not have, and cannot use. With development in technology, as well as the ease of sharing, […]
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
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
Download Firm Profile