A trademark dispute between two automotive heavyweights has ended with the Delhi High Court siding with Maruti Suzuki India Limited, declining to revive an opposition raised by Volkswagen AG over the registration of the mark ‘TRANSFORMOTION’.
The German automaker had challenged an earlier decision of the Trade Marks Registry that dismissed its objection to Maruti Suzuki’s trademark application. Volkswagen argued that Maruti’s proposed mark closely resembled its own registered mark ‘4MOTION’, and could potentially mislead consumers.
However, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora upheld the Registry’s decision, finding no deceptive similarity between the competing marks.
Court finds no real risk of confusion
The Court observed that both companies enjoy strong reputations in India and cater to buyers in the automobile market, where purchases are rarely impulsive. Cars, it noted, are typically bought after careful consideration, reducing the likelihood that consumers would mistake one brand’s product for another.
Given the distinct identities and established goodwill of the two manufacturers, the Court concluded that there was no convincing material to suggest that a buyer would assume that vehicles bearing Maruti’s mark were linked to Volkswagen.
Different meanings and functions
The judgment also examined how the two marks are used in practice.
Volkswagen’s ‘4MOTION’ refers to its four-wheel-drive technology, a system that monitors driving conditions and distributes power across wheels. The feature is associated with certain models of Volkswagen vehicles.
Maruti Suzuki’s ‘TRANSFORMOTION’, by contrast, relates to the transformation of dashboard speedometers in its vehicles—from analogue displays to digital ones.
Because the marks describe entirely different concepts, the Court found that their meanings and associations diverge significantly.
Visual and phonetic distinctions
A side-by-side comparison of the marks also revealed clear visual and phonetic differences.
The Court highlighted that Volkswagen’s mark begins with the numeral “4”, while Maruti’s mark begins with the alphabetic prefix “TRANS”. This distinction, it said, produces a different pronunciation and overall impression, making confusion unlikely.
Advertising material for the two marks was also reviewed. The Court found no visual overlap in how the marks are presented or marketed.
“Motion” common in the auto sector
Maruti Suzuki further argued that the word “MOTION” is commonly used within the automobile industry, and therefore cannot be monopolised by a single manufacturer.
The Court accepted this argument, noting that several third-party trademarks incorporate the term. Since Volkswagen had not effectively disputed these examples, the claim that the word was distinctive to its brand carried little weight.
Earlier use strengthens Maruti’s case
Another factor that influenced the Court was the timeline of usage. Maruti Suzuki had begun using the mark ‘TRANSFORMOTION’ in 2016, while Volkswagen’s use of ‘4MOTION’ in the context raised in the dispute dated to 2017.
This sequence further weakened the argument that Maruti’s mark rode on the reputation of Volkswagen’s branding.
With these findings, the Court concluded that the two marks differ sufficiently in appearance, pronunciation, meaning and commercial context—leaving no credible ground to block Maruti Suzuki’s trademark.
