1. I.A.No.16776/2009: This is an application filed by the plaintiff under order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC. Vide ex parte order dated 22.12.2009 defendants had been restrained from using the trademark/trading style TOYOTA, the toyota device, INNOVA and PRIUS in respect of auto parts and accessories or any other allied goods or to do anything which may cause confusion or deception amounting to passing off defendant?s goods as that of the plaintiff.

2. I.A.No.110/2010: This is an application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC filed by the defendant; he has prayed that the ex parte order dated 22.12.2009 be set aside.

3. I.A.No.1156/2010: This is an application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC filed by the plaintiff; it has been prayed that the defendant in spite of the ex parte injunction operating against him is continuing user of the trademarks of the plaintiff and is also guilty of passing off of the goods of the plaintiff as that of his own.

4. Crl.M.A.No.1032/2010: This is an application filed by the plaintiff under Order 340 Cr.P.C. and supplements the prayers made in the application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC. The affidavit filed by the defendant along with his application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC has made false statements and misrepresentation; defendant is liable for perjury.

5. Pleadings are complete in all the aforestated applications. By this common order the aforenoted applications are being disposed of.

6. The cause of action in this suit is two-fold. Plaintiff has firstly sought a permanent injunction on an action of infringement of his registered trademark; the registered trademarks being „TOYOTA? „toyota device? and „INNOVA?. Second relief is a relief of permanent injunction in a case of passing off. Plaintiff is stated to be the prior user of the mark „PRIUS?, he admittedly has no registration in India of the mark „PRIUS?.

7. Case of plaintiff: To substantiate his plea of passing off on the use of the mark „PRIUS? plaintiff has submitted as follows:

i. Plaintiff company is a company registered in Japan, dealing in the manufacture and sale of automobiles and parts thereof. In the year 1994 plaintiff designed a concept car with a hybrid engine; vehicle was named „PRIUS? derived from the Latin word „prior? or „before?. The first „PRIUS? model was sold in December, 1997 in Japan. Official launch of „PRIUS? was in 2001. Plaintiff company has revenues of over U.S. 220 billion dollars and its products are widely marketed in India as also in over 80 other countries throughout the world. Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the trademark „PRIUS? in 28 countries commencing from the year 1990. Defendants are using the mark „PRIUS? as an essential and leading portion of their trading name and the same appears on its products. Such a use by the defendant is without authorization or permission and amounts to passing off and dilution of the plaintiff?s trademark „PRIUS? which was adopted by the plaintiff in the year 1990. Defendants are adversely affecting the plaintiff?s good-will.

ii. Plaintiff has pleaded his sale figures in foreign countries. The sale units of the car show that the sale figures have climbed enormously from 300 units in 1997 to 2,85,600 units in 2008. In May 2008 the global figure had reached the one million mark and crossed over to the 1.43 million units in August 2008. Extensive advertisements of the said vehicle both in national and international publications have been placed on record.

iii. “Business Week” publications of 15.12.1997, 21.1.1998, 27.04.1998, 27.07.1998, 13.11.2000 and again on 27.11.2000 had as far back as in 1997 depicted the status of this compact car and the efforts of the plaintiff i.e. the „TOYOTA? company to promote this venture. On 31.07.1998 and again on 8.11.2001, the ”New York Times” had reported and widely publicized this hybrid vehicle and the advance technology put forward by „TOYOTA? in it. Print outs from the web sites www.toyoto.com and www.toyotabharat.com, the Encyclopedia B