Trademark ruling makes international brand owners tremble
Few people would describe the name Prius as anything other than the marque of Toyota’s iconic hybrid car. Even so, there was not much reaction from the press when the Supreme Court recently denied the Japanese car maker rights to the name in India, ruling instead in favour of a small auto parts manufacturer that trademarked it in 2002 and has used it ever since. The court said Toyota had not been able to prove that the brand name of its car was well established in India, and it was not enough to merely say that it was.
This ruling sets the bar high for international brand owners and no doubt sends shivers down their spines. Brand names and reputations seep across borders, but restraining those who piggyback on the hard work of others can be a challenge. The intellectual property (IP) rights regime could be faulted on several counts, but in ruling that Toyota did not have a strong enough claim to the name Prius, the court appears to have reinstated some rigour into the system of protecting rights in India. Is it too much to ask that rights holders who seek to restrain infringers provide precise proof of their claims and the incurred damage?
You must be a
subscribersubscribersubscribersubscriber
to read this content, please
subscribesubscribesubscribesubscribe
today.
For group subscribers, please click here to access.
Interested in group subscription? Please contact us.
