Yamaha Hatsudoki Kabushiki Kaisha had moved the Supreme Court and challenged an order of May 2021 by the registrar/examiner of trademarks and refuses the request of the company ‘WR’ registration. | Photocredit: Soe Zeya Tun
In a relief of the Japanese car company Yamaha, the High Court of Bombay has put an order aside that it refuses a trademark that is similar to a trademark that has already been registered by Honda Motor Company and the registrar, trademarks, ordered the issue to rule again.
A Bank of Justice Manish Pitale on 13 June said while a bald inspection of the two trademark-Yamaha’s WR and Honda’s WR-V confusion in the heads of the public, the authority should regard the case as exceptional circumstances and consider an advertisement of the public before the public.
The court stated that the authority completely ignored the claim of Yamaha’s international reputation in its “Cryptic” order, while refusing the application and the fact that the company has been using the WR trade brand internationally since 1990 internationally.
Justice Pitale said that the authority could have passed a “detailed and well -ground order”.
Yamaha Hatsudoki Kabushiki Kaisha had moved the Supreme Court and challenged an order of May 2021 by the registrar/examiner of trademarks and refuses the request of the company ‘WR’ registration.
The authority had said that there was a chance of confusion in the spirit of the public between the trademark of Yamaha, for which registration was requested, and a similar trademark that was already in the register.
The registrar had registered the trademark of Honda Motor Company LTD-WR-V-Gaddgeled in the same category as a conflicting brand.
Justice Pitale said in order for a bald inspection of the two points’wr ‘by Yamaha and’ WR-V ‘from Honda-It was unable to accept Yamaha’s claim that there is no possibility of confusion in the spirit of the public.
It should be noted that the quoted Mark WR-V is registered in the same class 12, including motorcycles, the court said.
“That is why it can be said that therefore section 11 (1) of the Trade Marks Act evokes, of the respondent (registrar/researcher of trademarks), misplaced,” noted.
Justice Pitale said that Yamaha did not demonstrate how this section, which relates to parable with a certain trademark that leads to confusion in the spirit of the public, cannot be invoked.
However, the court noted that it was the authority to consider the claim of Yamaha that it has been using the ‘WR’ trademark internationally since 1990.
“This can be a situation that creates special circumstances in favor of the submitter (Yamaha),” said it.
Justice Pitale said it was not an unknown phenomenon that identical or similar trademarks could exist in the register.
The court destroyed the order of the registrar/examiner of trademarks that reject Yamaha’s request for the trademark ‘WR’.
It set the authority to advertise the application of the applicant before acceptance in accordance with the provisions of the Trade Marks Act and then to continue in accordance with the law.
According to section 20 (1) of the trade markings, the Authority can advertise for the application that the public is looking for before the application is accepted.
The clerk opposed Yamaha’s plea before the court and repeated that her trademark WR could not be distinguished from the cited WR-V, and therefore there was a chance of confusion in people’s heads.
Yamaha, however, argued in his plea that his trademark was ‘WR’ in the context of his motorcycle and the trademark WR-V of the Honda Motor Company Limited was in the context of his car.
It stated that the two simultaneously exist about various international areas of law.
The company pointed out that in August 1990 it took over the trademark ‘WR’ for products, parts and accessories of tricycleers, parts and accessories, sold these products in 131 countries since 1999 and sold in at least 62 countries.
The company was planning to launch its WR range of motorcycles in India and had therefore submitted its application for registration of the DRAW DRENTERK in 2018.
It served to the court before the registrar accepted the order that his application rejects in a mechanical way without applying his mind correctly.
Published on June 16, 2025
#destroys #order #refuses #Yamaha #handle #brand #comparable #Honda #directs #authority #decide