Toyota vs Tech Square Engineering — Delhi HC Revives ALPHARD Trademark on Trans-Border Reputation

Case Background

In a significant ruling for global brand owners without a direct commercial presence in India, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court has held that Toyota's luxury vehicle mark ALPHARD qualifies as a well-known trademark in India — despite Toyota never formally launching the vehicle here. The judgment sets aside a 2023 Single Judge order and directs cancellation of an Indian company's identical trademark registrations.

Toyota adopted the mark ALPHARD in 1986 and commercially launched the luxury multi-purpose vehicle bearing this name in 2002. While the model was never officially introduced in India — a rebadged version was instead launched here under the name VELLFIRE in 2020 — Toyota claimed that ALPHARD-branded vehicles had entered the Indian market through direct imports as early as 2008, and that the mark had acquired global goodwill that spilled over into India well before any competing claim arose.

Tech Square Engineering Pvt. Ltd., an Indian company, applied for and secured registration of the identical mark ALPHARD in 2015 across three classes — 9, 12 and 27 — on a "proposed to be used" basis. Upon discovering this, Toyota initiated rectification proceedings, first before the erstwhile Intellectual Property Appellate Board and later before the Delhi High Court, seeking removal of Tech Square's registrations under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

Why the Single Judge Dismissed Toyota's Claim

In February 2023, the Single Judge dismissed Toyota's rectification petition. The reasoning centred on the absence of any formal commercial launch, sales invoices, or advertising by Toyota within India. Evidence of imports was discounted on the ground that these were carried out by private third parties rather than Toyota itself, and media coverage relied upon by Toyota largely post-dated Tech Square's registration.

• No Indian sales invoiceToyota could not produce a single invoice showing it had sold a vehicle under the ALPHARD mark in India
• No Indian advertisingInternational brochures, annual reports and promotional material related only to global use, not use within India
• Third-party imports discountedImport and sale documents showed imports were made by private individuals, not by Toyota, and were treated as insufficient to establish use by the Appellant
• Vehicle launched under a different nameThe Single Judge noted that the same model was eventually launched in India in 2020 — not as ALPHARD, but as VELLFIRE

Applying the territoriality principle recognised by the Supreme Court in Toyota v. Prius Auto Industries (2018), the Single Judge concluded that Toyota had failed to establish goodwill within India and upheld Tech Square as the prior bona fide user.

Toyota's Key Arguments on Appeal

Before the Division Bench, Senior Advocate Mr. Sandeep Sethi, appearing for Toyota, argued that the Single Judge had disregarded overwhelming and uncontroverted material establishing Toyota's prior rights, trans-border reputation and the Respondent's dishonest adoption of an identical mark.

• Undisputed prior global adoptionToyota adopted ALPHARD in 1986, with commercial use from 2002 — well before Tech Square's 2015 "proposed to be used" application
• Spill-over reputation into IndiaVehicles were available in India through imports, independent listings, automotive platforms and digital visibility since at least 2008 — satisfying the requirement of spill-over reputation
• No tangible market requiredExistence of a tangible market is not a precondition for establishing reputation — a virtual presence coupled with consumer awareness is sufficient in law
• Respondent's inconsistent explanationsTech Square, at different stages, claimed to have independently coined the mark and separately described it as a dictionary or astronomical reference — undermining its claim of bona fide adoption
• Unreliable invoicesThe Respondent's invoices were issued in the name of a separate entity, Tekstar Global Private Limited, with no evidence establishing the corporate relationship to Tech Square

Delhi High Court's Ruling

The Division Bench — comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla — allowed the appeal and directed cancellation of Tech Square's ALPHARD registrations under Classes 9, 12 and 27, holding that the marks were "wrongly remaining" on the Register within the meaning of Section 57(2) of the Trade Marks Act.

• ALPHARD held to be well-known in IndiaThe Court found that Toyota's mark had acquired recognition within India prior to Tech Square's 2015 application, qualifying it as a well-known trademark under Section 11 of the Act
• Registrations cancelledRegistration Nos. 3093216, 3093218 and 3093219 in Classes 9, 12 and 27 were declared invalid and directed to be removed from the Register of Trade Marks
• Respondent's bona fides rejectedThe Court found Tech Square's adoption of the identical mark could not be viewed as fortuitous or innocent, given the inconsistencies in its explanation

Unsolicited Imports as Evidence of Reputation

The Court held that vehicles being independently imported into India by private buyers and automobile enthusiasts — without any prompting or marketing by Toyota — was itself compelling evidence of goodwill. Toyota placed on record classified advertisements, resale listings on platforms such as CarTrade and CarWale, discussion threads on Indian automotive forums including Team-BHP, and press references — including reports of the vehicle being owned by prominent individuals — spanning back to 2008.

The Bench reasoned that consumers do not import a high-value luxury product unless they already recognise and desire the brand, making such imports a more persuasive indicator of reputation than formal sales figures. "Goodwill is best evidenced not by mere assertion, but by the response of the market itself," the Court observed, holding that the market had spoken unequivocally in favour of Toyota's mark.

Niche-Market Recognition, Not Mass Penetration

The judgment draws an important distinction for luxury and niche products. Mass-market penetration is not the yardstick for such goods; instead, recognition within the relevant, specialised consumer segment is sufficient under Sections 11(6) and 11(7) of the Act. The Court held that the Single Judge had erred by effectively demanding evidence of general public awareness rather than niche-segment recognition.

In markets for luxury goods, the Court noted, consumer awareness is driven by brand visibility and global reputation rather than mass sales — meaning that even limited but genuine evidence of import activity and online consumer engagement carries heightened probative value.

Prius Distinguished, Not Diluted

Significantly, the Bench clarified that the Supreme Court's decision in Toyota v. Prius Auto Industries should not be read as rejecting trans-border reputation as a concept. Toyota lost that earlier case because the Prius brand lacked any real evidence of presence or awareness in India at the relevant time — the car had entered the Indian market only in 2009–2010, with negligible advertisement or sales prior to 2001.

Here, by contrast, the Court found the evidentiary record materially different — Toyota's substantial published material, including third-party sales, demonstrated genuine prior reputation, making Prius distinguishable rather than controlling. The Court also relied on the Division Bench's earlier ruling in Trustees of Princeton University v. Vagdevi Educational Society, holding that "use" of a mark under the Act extends to any public-domain material associating the mark with the goods — including third-party listings and press coverage — and is not restricted to the proprietor's direct commercial activity.

Doubts Over the Respondent's Bona Fides

The Court was critical of Tech Square's shifting explanations for adopting the mark — at one point claiming to have coined it, and at another describing it as a dictionary or astronomical reference. It also noted that Tech Square's invoices were issued in the name of a separate entity, Tekstar Global Private Limited, with no material placed on record to establish common shareholding, management control or any formal commercial arrangement between the two.

• No corporate nexus provenA mere assertion of "sister concern" status, unsupported by documentary proof, cannot convert the actions of a third party into use by the proprietor
• Undocumented cash transactionsSeveral invoices reflected cash transactions without disclosing the identity or address of purchasers, further weakening their evidentiary value
• Contradictory adoption storyClaiming both original coinage and dictionary-word origin for the same mark undermined the credibility of Tech Square's explanation

The Bench held this evidence insufficient to establish bona fide prior use by Tech Square in India, and found that the adoption of an identical mark in the same field of business — against the backdrop of Toyota's global reputation — raised serious doubt as to its bona fides.

Key Lessons for Brand Owners

• Document organic market presence earlyPreserve evidence of grey-market or third-party imports, resale listings and online consumer discussion well before a formal India launch is planned
• Reputation is assessed relative to the consumer segmentFor luxury or niche products, courts may look at recognition within the relevant consumer segment rather than requiring mass-market awareness
• Monitor the Indian Register proactivelyForeign brand owners should track Indian trademark filings early to catch conflicting "proposed to be used" applications before they mature into registrations
• Corporate affiliation claims need documentary proofDomestic applicants relying on sister-concern or affiliate use to establish prior use must be prepared to demonstrate the corporate relationship — mere assertion will not suffice
• Consistency in adoption story mattersInconsistent explanations for adopting a mark identical to an established international brand can seriously undermine a claim of honest, bona fide adoption

Why Choose Adv. Nikhil Soni & Co.?

• Personal handling by senior advocateAdv. Nikhil Soni personally handles every IPR matter — clients deal directly with the advocate
• 23+ years, 5000+ trademarksExclusive IP practice since 2001 — trademark, patent, copyright, design and trade secret
• All India coverageAuthorised to appear before all five Trade Marks Offices and IP Courts across India
• End-to-end serviceSearch, filing, objection, rectification and litigation — complete trademark lifecycle management

Frequently Asked Questions