JBM Auto to invest Rs 300crore with Poland’s Solaris Bus & Coach

  55
 June 2, 2024

NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has indicted two Indian auto component makers for allegedly infringing on Japanese automaker Toyota’s Prius and Inova trademarks and “knowingly and willfully” infringing on their companies to reap “excessive profits” from the auto giant. . Use this brand. Pay 10 million won in damages.

Justice Manmohan Singh also barred companies, owners, agents and representatives of the city from manufacturing, selling, advertising or trading in automobile parts or products with the Toyota trademark or similar trademarks.

The court imposed severe penalties on Prius Automotive Industries, Inc. and its sister company, Prius Auto Parts, and its owners for violating the trademark rights of the Japanese companies “Innova and Toyota” by passing off Toyota products and services. The defendants (the two companies and their owners) used these trademarks for the purpose of capitalizing on such great goodwill and reputation. ‘

“It is clear that the defendants manufactured and sold spare parts (not the plaintiff’s originals) and claimed that they were compatible with the plaintiff’s products, giving a false impression to the plaintiff’s consumers. The “provisions” of the Trademark Act were violated.

The court held that Toyota’s “name” Prius is a trademark that “has been used by the Japanese automaker since 1995, when it launched the world’s first hybrid car bearing that name”. The court found that the trademark Prius “has had a significant impact on the market since 1995, when the Japanese automaker introduced the world’s first hybrid car under that name”. It was unacceptable for the defendant to claim that it was “good and reputable”, but to claim that it was unaware of this.

Prior to the court order, Toyota asked the two Indian companies to stop infringing on its registered and well-known trademarks.

Toyota’s lawyer, Pravin Anand, claimed that the two Indian companies and their owners had registered illegally.

Anand argued in court that the defendants were not authorized, approved or licensed to use Toyota’s registered and well-known trademarks.

Recommended Suppliers