Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha (Plaintiff) v
Biju & Anr (Defendant), was a suit against Biju & Anr, for
permanent injunction, rendition of accounts and damages and
delivering up of infringed material.
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha (Plaintiff); a world-renowned
corporation registered in Japan is engaged in the manufacture and
sale of automobiles and auto parts. They claimed that the trademark
"TOYOTA" has been used in India since 1957 in relation to
vehicles, their parts and fittings. It was also claimed that on
account of the quality of the products, which were being sold under
the name "TOYOTA" and continuous use of the same, it had
acquired an enviable reputation and goodwill in the market.
On being informed about sale of fake spare parts being sold
under the name "TOYOTA", the Plaintiff had appointed an
investigator who revealed that Biju & Anr were selling
'Spurious Oil Filter' and 'Universal Joint Cross'.
A legal notice was sent by the Plaintiff to the Defendants to
refrain them from the unauthorized use of the trademark
"TOYOTA". There was no reply to this, which then was
followed by a reminder, to which Defendant No. 2 replied denying
infringement. The Defendant no. 3 had reached a compromise with the
Plaintiff during the pendency of the suit.
A perusal of the photograph of the oil filters purchased by the
investigator from Benz Auto Spares showed that the word mark
"TOYOTA" had been used on the fuel filter and it was
exactly the same as the registered trade mark of the Plaintiff
company. Therefore, by using the said mark on the fuel filter, the
Defendant No. 1 had infringed the registered trademark
"TOYOTA" of the plaintiff company.
The learned Judge observed the following:
That unlike the case of Mahendra & Mahendra v Mahindra
& Mahindra where it had been observed that the impugned
name was not a replica of the plaintiff company, or in Motari
Overseas Ltd. v Montari Industries Ltd. where there was a
change in the middle name, in the present case, the defendants had
been found using not only the corporate name, but also the
registered trademark of the plaintiff company and that too without
even making an attempt to camouflage their infringement by making
minor changes here and there. The infringement by them, therefore,
was very blatant and absolutely unequivocal. The case of the
plaintiff company for grant of injunction, therefore, stood on a
much stronger footing.
That the trademark "TOYOTA" enjoys immense reputation
and goodwill in India in respect of automobiles and its parts, and
therefore has become a well-known trademark in this field. Thus,
it's use by the Defendant would prove to be detrimental to the
reputation and goodwill, which the brand "TOYOTA"
commands in the market.
Further, if a product being sold by the Defendant under the
trademark "TOYOTA" was found to be of an inferior quality
that would likely cause serious prejudice to the image and goodwill
of the brand "TOYOTA", this, in turn would likely
adversely affect the financial interest of the Plaintiff company
besides giving unjust enrichment to the defendant at the cost of
The Court thus stated that keeping the above considerations in
mind the Defendant No.1 had to be restrained from manufacturing,
selling, storing for sale or advertising auto components under the
trade mark "TOYOTA" or any other mark similar to the
registered trademark "TOYOTA" of the Plaintiff
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
This article enunciates the recent, much awaited, and landmark judgment delivered on September 16, 2016 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court throwing light on the important provisions of the Copyright Act, 1962.
Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion recently issued an office memorandum pursuant to receiving representations from various stakeholders for guidance with respect to the applicability of the provisions of Section 31D of the Copyright Act, 1957.
An Invention Disclosure Form is the documentation of the invention. This is a means to document particulars of your invention and submitting it to the patent attorney who is filing your patent application.
The Patents Act 1970, along with the Patents Rules 1972, came into force on 20th April 1972, replacing the Indian Patents and Designs Act 1911. The Patents Act was largely based on the recommendations of the Ayyangar Committee Report headed by Justice N. Rajagopala Ayyangar. One of the recommendations was the allowance of only process patents with regard to inventions relating to drugs, medicines, food and chemicals.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).