Volkswagen and Maruti reached court regarding 'name theft', court reprimanded

Volkswagen and Maruti reached court regarding 'name theft', court reprimanded

by with No Comment Car Review

Delhi High Court has completely rejected the appeal of German automobile giant Volkswagen AG. A single bench of Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora gave this important decision on 12 March 2026. Actually, Volkswagen had opposed the registration of Maruti Suzuki India Limited's TRANSFORMATION trademark saying it was similar to its popular 4MOTION mark.

Earlier a complaint was made to the Trademark Registrar regarding this. After this, VW has moved the High Court. The court upheld the 2023 decision of the Trademark Registrar and gave relief to Maruti Suzuki. Now this trademark of Maruti can be registered in Class 12 (Vehicles). Let us know what the whole matter is and what the court said regarding this controversy.

What is the matter?

Maruti Suzuki had filed trademark application number 2990453 on 22 June 2015. The trademark registrar advertised it. Volkswagen filed a Notice of Opposition claiming that 'Transformation' is deceptively similar to their registered mark '4Motion' (Registration No. 1388469, 2005). The Registrar rejected Volkswagen's objection and approved Maruti's application in December 2023. After this, Volkswagen filed an appeal in the Delhi High Court.

Volkswagen's argument

The company said that Maruti has completely copied their '4Motion' and only added the 'Trans' prefix. '4Motion' is their intelligent all-wheel drive (AWD) system, which is used in models like Tiguan. He claimed that this could create confusion among consumers.

Maruti Suzuki's answer

Maruti told the court that the word 'motion' is common in the automobile industry. Transformation is a wordplay of transformation, reflecting the technology transition from analog to digital speedometers in their vehicles. He provided evidence of use of the mark since 2016, while Volkswagen introduced it in 2017.

court analysis

Justice Arora said that both the marks should be seen as a whole. There is no similarity visually. One starts with 4 numeric and the other starts with trans alphabets. Phonetically the pronunciations are also different, transformation and formation. Conceptually both are also different from each other.

One reflects the AWD system and the other technology transition. The court said that motion is a common term in the auto industry. Both companies have independent and strong goodwill in India. Cars are bought thoughtfully, so there is no scope for confusion.

The court clarified that it is confident that consumers will not buy Maruti Suzuki products mistaking them for Volkswagen. Citing old decisions (like Corn Products vs Shangrila), he said that marks cannot be dissected. This decision is a big victory for Maruti Suzuki.

Source link

Delhi High Court asks NHAI to fix representation on unfair highway toll collection

Delhi High Court asks NHAI to fix representation on unfair highway toll collection

by with No Comment car updates

By: PTI
, updated on: October 13, 2024, 09:45 am

  • Delhi HC said the representation by the authorities should be disposed of within four weeks as per law.
Delhi HC said the representation by the authorities should be disposed of within four weeks as per law.

The Delhi High Court has asked the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) to decide on a representation raising the issue of alleged unfair toll fee collection and establishment of toll plazas on highways across the country.

A bench of Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela was hearing a PIL on September 25 when it disposed of the plea, allowing the petitioner to file a comprehensive representation with the NHAI within two weeks.

The court said that the representations should be disposed of by the authorities within four weeks as per law.

Petitioner Anand Mishra, an advocate, said that as per the National Highway Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, NHAI is clearly barred from collecting toll on the semi-constructed portion of the highway and toll fee plazas cannot be established. Can be done. 60 kilometers.

“The respondent (NHAI) has and is still collecting undue wealth by charging unreasonable toll from passengers on the highways,” the plea said.

Therefore, the petitioner sought to direct NHAI to comply with Rules 3(2) and 8(2) of the National Highway Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008 with immediate effect throughout India.

The petition sought a direction to the court to conduct a survey and form a committee to calculate the amount of toll fee collected so far by NHAI by allegedly violating these rules and ensure that the amount collected is The amount spent should be returned immediately.

Rule 3(2) provides for commencement of collection of fee within 45 days from the date of completion of the section of National Highway, permanent bridge, bypass or tunnel, as the case may be, constructed through a publicly funded project .

On the other hand, Rule 8(2) states that no other toll plaza shall be established on the same stretch of the National Highway and within 60 kilometers in the same direction.

The petitioner had informed the court about giving a representation to the authorities in August but it was not acted upon.

Get information about upcoming cars in India, electric vehicles, upcoming bikes in India and cutting-edge technology that is changing the automotive landscape.

First publication date: 13 October 2024, 09:45 AM IST

Source link