Delhi High Court Dismisses Volkswagen's Challenge To Maruti Suzuki's 'Transformotion' Trademark

The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by German automobile major Volkswagen AG, allowing Maruti Suzuki India Limited to proceed with registration of the trademark “TRANSFORMOTION” for vehicles.

The ruling came in a judgment delivered on March 12, 2026, in which Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora held that the rival marks, when compared as a whole, do not create any plausible likelihood of confusion and appear distinct from each other.

The court also took note of the nature of the goods involved. Cars, it observed, are expensive products that buyers typically purchase only after careful consideration. In such circumstances, the Court said, it is unlikely that consumers would be confused or misled about the source of the product.

Volkswagen AG had filed the appeal against the Registrar of Trade Marks and Maruti Suzuki India Limited, challenging the dismissal of its opposition to the trademark “TRANSFORMOTION”. The German automaker contended that Maruti Suzuki's mark is phonetically, visually and conceptually similar to its registered mark “4MOTION”.

It argued that Maruti Suzuki copied its uniquely coined mark, which is pronounced as “FORMOTION”, and merely added the prefix “TRANS”, which according to it was inconsequential. Volkswagen also asserted that both marks conveyed similar ideas relating to their respective automotive technologies.

Opposing the appeal, Maruti Suzuki submitted that its mark “TRANSFORMOTION” is a single integrated expression derived from the word “transformation”, intended to signify a transition in technology in its vehicles, including the shift from analogue to digital systems. The company further argued that the word “MOTION” is commonly used in the automobile industry and is descriptive in nature, and therefore cannot be monopolised by Volkswagen. It also pointed out that it had begun using the mark in an advertisement campaign in 2016, whereas Volkswagen's documents showed use of the “4MOTION” mark in India only in 2017.

Upon examining the rival marks, the court held that trademarks must be compared as a whole and not by dissecting individual parts. The Court noted that the visual appearance of the marks is different, as Volkswagen's mark begins with the numeral “4” whereas Maruti Suzuki's mark begins with alphabets.

On phonetic comparison, the Court held that the presence of the prefix “TRANS” sufficiently distinguishes the two marks even if “4MOTION” is pronounced as “FORMOTION”. The Court also observed that since the word “MOTION” is commonly used in the automobile industry, greater significance must be given to the uncommon portions of the marks, namely “4” and “TRANSFOR”, which are distinct.

“Keeping in view of the said principle of law, on a comparison of the Appellant's mark '4MOTION' with Respondent No. 2's whole mark 'TRANSFORMOTION', this Court is satisfied that from a visual overlook, there is no plausible chance of confusion between the two rival marks because they are different from one another,” the Court observed.

The Court also noted that both Volkswagen AG and Maruti Suzuki India Limited have substantial goodwill in the Indian market and that cars are purchased after careful consideration, reducing the likelihood of confusion. It further noted that Maruti Suzuki's use of the impugned mark in 2016 preceded Volkswagen's use of its mark in India.

Finding no deceptive similarity between the marks, the court upheld the decision of the Registrar of Trade Marks and dismissed the appeal.