{"id":23817,"date":"2026-05-08T11:12:00","date_gmt":"2026-05-08T11:12:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=23817"},"modified":"2026-05-08T11:15:31","modified_gmt":"2026-05-08T11:15:31","slug":"role-of-transborder-reputation-in-trademark-rectification","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/role-of-transborder-reputation-in-trademark-rectification\/","title":{"rendered":"Role of transborder reputation in Trademark Rectification"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"introduction\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Introduction\"><\/span>Introduction<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The decision rendered by the Division Bench of the <strong>Delhi High Court<\/strong> in <em>Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha v. Tech Square Engineering Pvt. Ltd &amp; <\/em>Anr marks an important development in Indian trademark jurisprudence relating to transborder reputation, well-known trademarks, the territoriality principle, and the protection of global brands in India.<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_82_2 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/role-of-transborder-reputation-in-trademark-rectification\/#Introduction\" >Introduction<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/role-of-transborder-reputation-in-trademark-rectification\/#Factual_And_Procedural_Background\" >Factual And Procedural Background<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/role-of-transborder-reputation-in-trademark-rectification\/#Registration_Of_The_Disputed_Trademark\" >Registration Of The Disputed Trademark<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/role-of-transborder-reputation-in-trademark-rectification\/#Proceedings_Before_IPAB_And_Delhi_High_Court\" >Proceedings Before IPAB And Delhi High Court<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/role-of-transborder-reputation-in-trademark-rectification\/#Nature_Of_The_Dispute\" >Nature Of The Dispute<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/role-of-transborder-reputation-in-trademark-rectification\/#Toyotas_Contentions\" >Toyota\u2019s Contentions<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/role-of-transborder-reputation-in-trademark-rectification\/#Respondents_Contentions\" >Respondent\u2019s Contentions<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/role-of-transborder-reputation-in-trademark-rectification\/#Reasoning_and_Analysis_of_the_Court\" >Reasoning and Analysis of the Court<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/role-of-transborder-reputation-in-trademark-rectification\/#Interpretation_of_Section_11_of_the_Trade_Marks_Act\" >Interpretation of Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-10\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/role-of-transborder-reputation-in-trademark-rectification\/#Distinction_from_the_Prius_Judgment\" >Distinction from the Prius Judgment<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-11\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/role-of-transborder-reputation-in-trademark-rectification\/#Evidence_Relied_Upon_by_the_Court\" >Evidence Relied Upon by the Court<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-12\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/role-of-transborder-reputation-in-trademark-rectification\/#Luxury_and_Niche_Market_Reputation\" >Luxury and Niche Market Reputation<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-13\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/role-of-transborder-reputation-in-trademark-rectification\/#Digital_Visibility_and_Modern_Brand_Recognition\" >Digital Visibility and Modern Brand Recognition<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-14\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/role-of-transborder-reputation-in-trademark-rectification\/#Territoriality_and_Trans-Border_Reputation\" >Territoriality and Trans-Border Reputation<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-15\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/role-of-transborder-reputation-in-trademark-rectification\/#Final_Decision_of_the_Court\" >Final Decision of the Court<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-16\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/role-of-transborder-reputation-in-trademark-rectification\/#Point_of_Law_Settled_in_the_Case\" >Point of Law Settled in the Case<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-17\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/role-of-transborder-reputation-in-trademark-rectification\/#Case_Details\" >Case Details<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n\n\n\n<p>The judgement examines whether a globally recognised trademark can obtain protection in India even in the absence of a formal commercial launch or direct sales within the Indian market. The court was required to determine whether the trademark \u201cALPHARD\u201d, used globally by Toyota for its luxury vehicles, had acquired sufficient reputation and goodwill in India before the respondent secured trademark registrations in 2015.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The judgment assumes significance because it clarifies the extent to which international reputation, digital visibility, niche consumer awareness, and independent imports into India can establish trademark goodwill within India under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Court also revisited and distinguished the landmark Supreme Court decision in <em>Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha v. Prius Auto Industries Ltd,<\/em> reported in (2018) 2 SCC 1, which has long governed the doctrine of territoriality and spill-over reputation in India.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"factual-and-procedural-background\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Factual_And_Procedural_Background\"><\/span>Factual And Procedural Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The appellant, Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha, is one of the world\u2019s leading automobile manufacturers incorporated in Japan.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Toyota adopted the trademark \u201cALPHARD\u201d in the year 1986 and commercially launched luxury multi-purpose vehicles under the said mark in 2002.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>According to Toyota, the ALPHARD vehicle acquired a substantial worldwide reputation and goodwill because of the following:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Extensive sales<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Promotions and advertisements<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Global trademark registrations<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Consumer recognition across several jurisdictions<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Toyota asserted before the court that although the ALPHARD vehicle was not formally launched in India, the vehicle had nevertheless entered the Indian market through direct imports by private individuals, automobile enthusiasts, and luxury vehicle consumers since at least 2008.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Toyota relied upon the following materials to establish its prior reputation and awareness in India:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Online listings<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Automobile blogs<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Automotive discussions<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Classified advertisements<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Media reports<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Import data<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Toyota argued that these materials demonstrated that Indian consumers were aware of the ALPHARD brand much prior to 2015.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"registration-of-the-disputed-trademark\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Registration_Of_The_Disputed_Trademark\"><\/span>Registration Of The Disputed Trademark<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The dispute arose after Tech Square Engineering Pvt. Ltd applied for and secured registrations of the trademark \u201cALPHARD\u201d in Classes 9, 12 and 27 under Registration Nos. 3093216, 3093218 and 3093219 in 2015 on a \u201cproposed to be used\u201d basis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Trademark<\/th><th>Classes<\/th><th>Registration Numbers<\/th><th>Year<\/th><th>Status Claimed<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>ALPHARD<\/td><td>9, 12, 27<\/td><td>3093216, 3093218, 3093219<\/td><td>2015<\/td><td>Proposed To Be Used<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>Toyota thereafter initiated rectification proceedings under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking removal of the impugned marks from the Trade Marks Register on the ground that the registrations violated Sections 11(1), 11(2), and 11(3) of the Act and amounted to dishonest adoption of a globally reputed trademark.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"proceedings-before-ipab-and-delhi-high-court\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Proceedings_Before_IPAB_And_Delhi_High_Court\"><\/span>Proceedings Before IPAB And Delhi High Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The rectification petitions were originally filed before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>After abolition of the IPAB, the matters stood transferred to the Delhi High Court and were adjudicated by the learned Single Judge in C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 586\/2022.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>By judgement dated 03.02.2023, the learned Single Judge dismissed Toyota\u2019s rectification petitions, holding that Toyota failed to establish sufficient goodwill, use, or reputation of the ALPHARD mark in India prior to the respondent\u2019s adoption in 2015.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Aggrieved by the dismissal, Toyota filed letters patent appeals, being:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>LPA 176\/2023<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>LPA 177\/2023<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>LPA 178\/2023<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>These appeals were filed before the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"nature-of-the-dispute\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Nature_Of_The_Dispute\"><\/span>Nature Of The Dispute<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The central dispute before the Division Bench concerned whether Toyota\u2019s ALPHARD mark qualified as the following:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>An \u201cearlier trade mark\u201d<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>A \u201cwell-known trademark\u201d in India under Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>The issue arose despite the absence of a formal commercial launch in India before 2015.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"toyotas-contentions\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Toyotas_Contentions\"><\/span>Toyota\u2019s Contentions<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Toyota argued that its prior worldwide adoption, extensive global reputation, trans-border goodwill, digital presence, automobile publications, and independent imports into India sufficiently established consumer recognition and goodwill in India.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Toyota further contended that the respondent dishonestly adopted an identical mark for allied goods with knowledge of Toyota\u2019s internationally reputed mark.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"respondents-contentions\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Respondents_Contentions\"><\/span>Respondent\u2019s Contentions<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>On the other hand, Tech Square Engineering contended that Toyota never commercially sold or advertised ALPHARD vehicles in India before 2015 and that mere international reputation was insufficient to claim exclusivity within India.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The respondent relied heavily upon the territoriality principle recognised in <em>Prius<\/em> and argued that Toyota had itself filed trademark applications in India in 2017 on a \u201cproposed to be used\u201d basis, thereby admitting absence of prior use in India.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The respondent further argued that it was the bona fide adopter and registered proprietor of the ALPHARD mark in India since 2015 and had continuously used the mark for automobile accessories and related goods.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"reasoning-and-analysis-of-the-court\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Reasoning_and_Analysis_of_the_Court\"><\/span>Reasoning and Analysis of the Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The Division Bench analysed the concept of rectification under Section 57 and observed that a trademark can be removed from the Register if it was wrongly registered or wrongly remains on the Register.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Court referred extensively to the judgement in <strong>Sumit Vijay and Another Vs Major League Baseball Properties Inc. and Another, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 2<\/strong>, and <strong>BPI Sports LLC v. Saurabh Gulati &amp; Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 2424<\/strong>, while explaining the scope of goodwill and the relationship between Sections 9 and 11 of the Trade Marks Act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"interpretation-of-section-11\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Interpretation_of_Section_11_of_the_Trade_Marks_Act\"><\/span>Interpretation of Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The Court explained that under Sections 11(1) and 11(2), a mark may be refused registration if it conflicts with an \u201cearlier trademark&#8221;. The expression \u201cearlier trade mark\u201d includes not only prior registrations but also well-known trademarks entitled to protection in India.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Court then examined Sections 11(6) to 11(10) of the Trade Marks Act dealing with well-known trademarks. It emphasised that Indian law does not require actual commercial use in India as a mandatory condition for recognising a trademark as well-known. The Court highlighted Section 11(9), which specifically provides that the Registrar shall not require the trademark to have been used in India for determining whether it is well-known.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"distinction-from-prius-judgment\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Distinction_from_the_Prius_Judgment\"><\/span>Distinction from the Prius Judgment<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The Division Bench carefully distinguished the Supreme Court judgement in <strong>Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha v. Prius Auto Industries Ltd, (2018) 2 SCC 1<\/strong>. The Court clarified that Prius did not reject the doctrine of trans-border reputation. Instead, Prius merely held on to facts that Toyota had failed to establish sufficient spillover reputation of the PRIUS mark in India at the relevant time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Court observed that the present case stood on a materially different footing because Toyota had produced substantial evidence demonstrating recognition of the ALPHARD mark among Indian consumers in the luxury automobile segment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"evidence-relied-upon-by-the-court\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Evidence_Relied_Upon_by_the_Court\"><\/span>Evidence Relied Upon by the Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The evidence included:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Import data<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Online automobile portals<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Classified advertisements<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Blogs and automotive discussions<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Second-hand vehicle listings<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Media reports<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>References to use of ALPHARD vehicles by prominent Indian personalities<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>The Division Bench laid particular emphasis on unsolicited imports of ALPHARD vehicles into India by private individuals. According to the Court, such independent imports were not accidental or insignificant but constituted strong evidence of consumer awareness and brand recognition in India.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Court observed that consumers do not voluntarily import expensive luxury vehicles unless the brand already enjoys substantial goodwill and recognition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"luxury-and-niche-market-reputation\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Luxury_and_Niche_Market_Reputation\"><\/span>Luxury and Niche Market Reputation<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The Court held that for luxury and niche products, the test of reputation cannot be based on mass-market sales alone. Reputation in such markets must be judged from the perspective of the relevant section of consumers who deal with such specialised goods.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Court relied upon the Supreme Court observations in Prius, which recognised that a claimant need not establish the existence of a full-fledged market in India and that subtle market presence may suffice for establishing spill-over reputation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"digital-visibility-and-modern-brand-recognition\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Digital_Visibility_and_Modern_Brand_Recognition\"><\/span>Digital Visibility and Modern Brand Recognition<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The Court further observed that the Single Judge adopted an excessively restrictive approach by insisting on direct commercial sales and formal launch within India.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>According to the division bench, modern brand recognition is often created through:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Digital visibility<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Online discussions<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>International travel<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Automobile journalism<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Independent imports<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>The Court noted that these factors can establish substantial consumer awareness even without traditional sales channels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"territoriality-and-trans-border-reputation\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Territoriality_and_Trans-Border_Reputation\"><\/span>Territoriality and Trans-Border Reputation<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The Court also examined the concept of territoriality and clarified that Indian trademark law balances territoriality with protection of trans-border reputation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Bench observed that where a mark enjoys substantial recognition among the relevant consumer base in India, the proprietor is entitled to protection even in the absence of formal domestic sales.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Division Bench found that Toyota had successfully demonstrated spillover reputation and goodwill of the ALPHARD mark in India prior to the respondent\u2019s trademark applications dated 05.11.2015.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Court also noted that the respondent had adopted an identical mark for allied goods and that such adoption could not be treated as entirely bona fide in the circumstances of the case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"final-decision-of-the-court\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Final_Decision_of_the_Court\"><\/span>Final Decision of the Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The Delhi High Court allowed Toyota\u2019s appeals and set aside the judgement of the learned Single Judge dated 03.02.2023.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Division Bench held that Toyota had successfully established transborder reputation and goodwill of the ALPHARD trademark within India prior to the respondent\u2019s adoption in 2015.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Court held that the respondent\u2019s registrations were liable to be removed from the Trade Marks Register under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Court concluded that the ALPHARD mark qualified for protection as a well-known mark under Indian law and that the respondent\u2019s registrations could not be permitted to remain on the Register.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"point-of-law-settled-in-the-case\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Point_of_Law_Settled_in_the_Case\"><\/span>Point of Law Settled in the Case<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The judgement settles an important point of trademark law in India relating to trans-border reputation and well-known marks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Court clarified that actual commercial launch or direct sales in India are not indispensable requirements for establishing trademark goodwill in India.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Recognition among the relevant section of Indian consumers, supported by evidence such as imports, digital visibility, media publications, online discussions, and niche market awareness, can sufficiently establish transborder reputation under Sections 11(6) to 11(10) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The judgement also clarifies that the Supreme Court ruling in Prius does not reject protection of foreign trademarks lacking direct Indian sales.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Instead, Prius merely requires proof of substantial recognition and spillover reputation within India.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Delhi High Court therefore reaffirmed that Indian trademark law protects globally reputed marks where sufficient consumer recognition within India is established.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"case-details\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Case_Details\"><\/span>Case Details<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><tbody><tr><th>Particulars<\/th><th>Details<\/th><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Case Title<\/strong><\/td><td>Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha Vs Tech Square Engineering Pvt. Ltd &amp; Anr.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Date of Judgment<\/strong><\/td><td>04.05.2026<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Case Numbers<\/strong><\/td><td>LPA 176\/2023, LPA 177\/2023 and LPA 178\/2023<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Neutral Citation<\/strong><\/td><td>2026:DHC:3762-DB<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Court<\/strong><\/td><td>High Court of Delhi<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Coram<\/strong><\/td><td>Hon\u2019ble Mr Justice C. Hari Shankar and Hon\u2019ble Mr Justice Om Prakash Shukla<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Introduction The decision rendered by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha v. Tech Square Engineering Pvt. Ltd &amp; Anr marks an important development in Indian trademark jurisprudence relating to transborder reputation, well-known trademarks, the territoriality principle, and the protection of global brands in India. The judgement examines whether<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":56,"featured_media":23816,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[5149,28],"class_list":{"0":"post-23817","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-intellectual-property","8":"tag-intellectual-property","9":"tag-top-news"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/1-1.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23817","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/56"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=23817"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23817\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":23848,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23817\/revisions\/23848"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/23816"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=23817"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=23817"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=23817"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}