tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post5591878402679642166..comments2024-03-28T13:45:42.289+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Has the Indian Supreme Court Moved the Bad Faith Analysis to the Back Seat?Verónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-1619910265333390532018-01-09T12:57:24.111+00:002018-01-09T12:57:24.111+00:00Thank you Saurabh.
From my reading of the decisi...Thank you Saurabh. <br /><br />From my reading of the decision it does not appear that the court was convinced that the adoption was in good faith or genuine. The court did not look into the issue at all and there is no discussion on the adoption of the mark by the defendant or the plausibility of the argument that a manufacturer of automobile spare parts, including those of Toyota, could not know about a hybrid car sold by Toyota outside India. <br /><br />On the contrary, the court states in para 33, "Consequently, even if we are to disagree with the view of the Division Bench of the High Court in accepting the defendant’s version of the origin of the mark ‘Prius’, the eventual conclusion of the Division Bench will, nonetheless, have to be sustained."<br />The court, therefore, simply concluded that as the plaintiff (in the court's view) had not established goodwill in India, there is no need to look at bad faith. This is not in line with Milmet, which talks about genuine adoption being a pre-requisite.Taapsinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-23399084573077622462018-01-09T11:53:25.814+00:002018-01-09T11:53:25.814+00:00how can we say that SC is moving away from Bad fai...how can we say that SC is moving away from Bad faith doctrine when in this case, court wasn't entirely convinced that Defs adoption was bad faithSaurabhnoreply@blogger.com