https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196713 Use of PRIUS and references to TOYOTA, the toyota device and INNOVA on auto accessories was treated as honest descriptive use to indicate compatibility with particular vehicles, not as infringement or passing off. The defendant was a registered proprietor of PRIUS since 2002, had traded under that name for years, and the court found the packaging, pricing, purchasers and overall presentation sufficiently distinct to negate confusion. The plaintiff's delayed approach, prior knowledge through trade publications, and nondisclosure of material facts also weighed against interim relief. The ex parte injunction was therefore set aside and restraint, contempt and perjury-related applications were rejected. en-us Sun, 19 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 12 Dec 2017 18:34:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196713 Use of PRIUS and references to TOYOTA, the toyota device and INNOVA on auto accessories was treated as honest descriptive use to indicate compatibility with particular vehicles, not as infringement or passing off. The defendant was a registered proprietor of PRIUS since 2002, had traded under that name for years, and the court found the packaging, pricing, purchasers and overall presentation sufficiently distinct to negate confusion. The plaintiff's delayed approach, prior knowledge through trade publications, and nondisclosure of material facts also weighed against interim relief. The ex parte injunction was therefore set aside and restraint, contempt and perjury-related applications were rejected. Case-Laws Companies Law Sun, 19 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196713