LEXUS CASE SUMMARY
|Subject Heading:||I.F. Famous and Well-known Marks|
|Case Name and Citation:||
TOYOTA JIDOSHA KABUSHIKI KAISHA (TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION) vs HAYAT KIMYA SANAYII A.S, Case No. 2007/14; Decision No.2009/23 (Beyoglu Court of Intellectual and Industrial Rights)
TOYOTA JIDOSHA KABUSHIKI KAISHA (TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION)
HAYAT KIMYA SANAYII A.S.
|Marks Associated with Goods/Services:||
Plaintiff's well-known trademark “LEXUS” covering classes 07, 12 and defendant’s trademark registration no.2002/31430 “LEXUS” covering classes 03, 05 and 16.
|Nature of Case:||
Court action instituted for the cancellation of the defendant’s trademark registration no.2002/31430 “LEXUS” on grounds that the defendant unfairly benefits from the reputation of the world wide known LEXUS trademark, harms the distinguishing character thereof and the trademark is registered in bad faith.
|Overview of Decision and Ruling:||
*The plaintiff asserted that they are one of the largest automotive companies in the world and their LEXUS branded automobiles are categorized and produced as “luxurious” automobiles distributed in more than 170 countries around the world, that their LEXUS trademark has been first registered in Turkey on 1989 under reg. no. 114602 “LEXUS” covering goods in class 12 and following this registration the reg. nos. 2000/01946, 2000/0194 “LEXUS LS400” and “LEXUS LS430” trademarks covering goods in classes 07, 12 and reg. no. 2003/18232, 2004/40445, 2005/06538 “LEXUS RX400H”, “LEXUS RX350” and “LEXUS LS600H” trademarks covering the goods in class 12 have been registered; the LEXUS trademark is well-known in the sense of Article 6 bis of the Paris Convention and that it is not possible to consider that the defendant is unaware of this trademark and the reputation thereof. The defendant’s identical registration LEXUS covering classes 03, 05, 16 has been filed with bad faith therefore shall not be protected.
|Importance of Case:||
Defendant’s trademark identical to plaintiff’s worldwide well-known trademark was cancelled even in respect of different classes and despite the fact that plaintiff’s trademark was not accepted as well-known before the date of court’s evaluation.
|Contributing Firm:||Deris Attorneys At Law Partnership|