Impact of the Supreme Court’s Order in the Prius Case on the Issue of Determination of Transborder Reputation of Trademarks

Introduction: Setting the Tone

In one of its most consequential rulings, Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha v. Prius Auto Industries Ltd.[1] (hereinafter “Prius Case”) the Supreme Court of India, observed that the Intellectual Property Rights are territorial rather than being global. Before delving into the depths of this seminal ruling, it becomes important to have a cursory glance at the procedural development of this case. The legal dispute was a resultant of a suit filed by Toyota, which is a renowned Japanese automobile manufacturing Company, against Prius Auto Industries Ltd (spare parts manufacturer of automobile) for its Trademark infringement.

After considering the goodwill and reputation of the Prius Cars, an injunction was issued by the trial judge in favour of the plaintiff (Toyota), restraining the defendants from using the trademark ‘Prius’. The reputation was also established through the media presence including magazines, advertisements, and internet. However, the division bench of Delhi High Court overturned this decision and held that the injunction issued by the trial court was unjustified.

At last, the matter reached to the doors of the Apex Court through an appeal where it was ruled that the plaintiff was not entitled to the said injunction as they failed to establish goodwill or reputation of the ‘Prius’ mark in India as of 2001. In doing so, the Supreme Court based its finding on the Territoriality principle as against the well-settled Universality Doctrine. In this essay, the author seeks to analyse the implication of this seminal ruling of the Supreme Court and attempts to enlist the broad shortcomings involved in the approach adopted by the Court.

Rise of Territoriality over Universality

In the past, there have been umpteen cases where the claimant’s rights have been upheld by the Indian Courts based on the principle of Trans-border reputation of Trademarks. These decisions, collectively, culled out a doctrine of Universality which postulates that a passing off action can be effectuated if the trademark in question is having an international reputation or goodwill despite the unavailability of the product in the domestic market. Thus, it obviates the need to prove separate existence of the trademarks in each country. However, a momentous departure from this principle was witnessed in the Prius Case where the court based its finding on the principle of territoriality of trademarks. Territoriality principle entails that a successful passing off action for a trademark must show goodwill or reputation in each individual country i.e. the goodwill or reputation of the product or trademark would be considered from country to country, and not solely on the international goodwill or reputation enjoyed by it.

[Image Sources: Shutterstock]

Legal Cases of Prius Cars

In fact, the ruling of Prius Case goes against the settled position of law in the country. While scrutinizing the issue of trademarks’ trans-border reputation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had remarked, in the case of N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corporation[2] that “it cannot be said that a product and the trade mark under which it is sold abroad, does not have a reputation or goodwill in countries where it is not available”. These concerns are aggravated for the court has almost disregarded, without any sort of discussion or reasonable exposition, its earlier decisions including the Whirlpool (supra) and Milmet Oftho[3] (court rejected the argument of territoriality and said that it would be irrevalent to prove country-specific presence if the entity had already penetrated in the world market first).

Nevertheless, the reasoning adopted by the Court has a multitude of ramifications. The adoption of Territoriality doctrine entails that a thorough assessment of the documentary evidence would be conducted by the court in order to ascertain the reputation or goodwill enjoyed by the trademark. This, in turn, would create a higher threshold for the Multi-National Companies (MNCs) for instituting a passing off action in India.

The Role of Promotions and Advertisements

The method adopted by the Supreme Court for ascertaining the reputation and goodwill in the Prius Case indicates that the entities which have considerable reach to the wider sections of the public through advertisements and promotions have, comparatively, greater chances of proving the claim of passing off against the defendant. As a corollary to this, these entities must also ensure enough documentary evidence at their disposal so as to meet the higher threshold of establishing reputation or goodwill in the passing off action.

Delay in initiating an action of passing off

The Apex Court, in this case, found that the inordinate delay, on behalf of the plaintiff, in initiating an action of passing off is inexcusable. Again, this is a departure from its earlier rulings in the cases of N R Dongre[4] and Bengal Waterproof Limited[5] where it was held that the act of passing off is a ‘continuing wrong’ which leads to a fresh cause of action. Thus, this decision would cast a greater burden on the Multi-National Companies to exercise extreme caution and vigilance in filing the suit as any sort of delay on their part could potentially hamper the prospects of getting a favourable decision.

Conclusion

In light of the foregoing analysis, the author is of the opinion that the argument of the Supreme Court that the Territoriality principle should be preferred to Universality principle does not hold water. Additionally, the Apex Court’s decision in the Prius Case is not consistent with the authorities on this point of law.[6] In the legal community, the decision is almost perceived as having being passed without any discussion and has also aggravated the concerns of the IPR enthusiasts and Well-known trademark owners.  Lastly, universality principle also keeps global trade and commerce in check and aligns with the resolute stance of India in affording protection to the trademarks.

Author: Aneesha Tadi, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to chhavi@khuranaandkhurana.com or at  Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney.

[1] (2018) 2 SCC 1.

[2] 1996 PTC (16) 583 (SC)

[3] Milmet Oftho Industries & Ors. v. Allergan Inc., 2004 (28) PTC 585.

[4] Supra note 2.

[5] Bengal Waterproof Limited v. Bombay Waterproof Manufacturing Company and Anr., AIR 1997 SC 1398.

[6] Kamal Trading Co. v. Gillette UK Limited, 1988 (8) PTC 1; Apple Computer Inc. vs. Apple Leasing, 1992 (1) ArbLR 93; N R Dongre v. Whirlpool Corporation, 1996 (16) PTC 583; Rainforest Café Inc. v. Rainforest Café, 2001 (21) PTC 353.

Leave a Reply

Categories

Archives

  • October 2024
  • September 2024
  • August 2024
  • July 2024
  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010