India: Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha v Prius Auto Industries
Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX
Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

India: Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha v Prius Auto Industries

In this Supreme Court judgment, the appellant claimed that they were the proprietor of the well-known marks Toyota, Innova and Prius and that the respondents were selling auto-parts and accessories in India by using the appellant's registered marks especially the mark "PRIUS" on their products. The appellant had no registration of the mark 'PRIUS' in India, whereas the respondents had a registration for the same in India since 2001. The Appellant however claimed that their mark 'PRIUS' was registered in numerous other jurisdictions since 1990. The Division Bench of Delhi HC vide its order dated January 12 2017 held that even though 'PRIUS' was a well-known mark outside of India, the trans-border reputation of the said mark had to be proved in India. Since the Appellants could not furnish necessary evidence to prove that the mark 'PRIUS' was also well-known in India, the Court ruled in favour of the Respondents. Aggrieved by the said order, the Appellant had filed a special leave petition.

The Supreme Court vide its order dated December 14 2017 ruled in favour of the Respondents by stating that the Appellants had not supplied enough proof of its 'reputation' in the Indian market. The Court agreed with the ruling of the Division Bench and held that the mark "PRIUS" had not acquired the degree of goodwill, reputation or popularity in the Indian markets so as to vest in the appellant the necessary attributes of the right of a prior user so as to successfully maintain an action of passing off even against the registered owner/the respondents.

The Court further held that the evidences submitted by the appellant, i.e. advertisements in international magazines, availability of information on internet portals, would not be a safe basis to prove the existence of the necessary goodwill and reputation of a product in India at the relevant point of time (in the year 2001) due to the limited online exposure at that point of time.


R Parthasarathy


Lakshmi Kumaran & SridharanB6/10 Safdarjung EnclaveNew Delhi 110029, IndiaTel: +91 11 41299800Fax: +91 11 41299899vlakshmi@lakshmisri.comwww.lslaw.in

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Meet the esteemed judges who are assessing the first-ever Social Impact Awards
Lawyers debate whether the Supreme Court’s ruling helps maintain confidence in the trademark system
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
The group of lawyers, which includes seven IP partners, say they were impressed by ArentFox Schiff's wide-reaching experience
Andy Sherman, general counsel at Dolby Laboratories, says the company will continue to make GE Licensing’s patents available through existing pools
CMS, which represents Nestlé, had been told to respond to a cancellation action by February 12 but filed its response a day later
Keith Bergelt, CEO of the Open Invention Network, explains why AI technologies were not part of an update to its cross-licensing project
Kirkland & Ellis partners explain how they secured the dismissal of a patent case in which the other side had lied under oath
Managing IP understands the association had been considering other options, including Madrid or Vienna, after concerns were raised over Dubai’s positions on various rights
Chris Marando tells Managing IP that he's excited to work on PTAB matters at Perkins Coie, which recently hired another lawyer from his former firm
Gift this article