Search
Close this search box.
Japan Korea Taiwan China
Japan Korea Taiwan China

[CHAPTER V] OF ABETMENT

ABETMENT
Section 107: Abetment of a thing — A person abets the doing of a thing, who —

First. — Instigates any person to do that thing; or

Secondly. — Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or

Thirdly. — Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

Explanation 1. — A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.

Illustration

A, a public officer, is authorised by a warrant from a Court of Justice to apprehend Z, B, knowing that fact and also that C is not Z, wilfully represents to A that C is Z, and thereby intentionally causes A to apprehend C. Here B abets by instigation the apprehension of C.

Explanation 2. — Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.

Section 108: Abettor — A person abets an offence, who abets either the commission of an offence, or the commission of an act which would be an offence, if committed by a person capable by law of committing an offence with the same intention or knowledge as that of the abettor.

Explanation 1. — The abetment of the illegal omission of an act may amount to an offence although the abettor may not himself be bound to do that act.

Explanation 2. — To constitute the offence of abetment it is not necessary that the act abetted should be committed, or that the effect requisite to constitute the offence should be caused.

Illustrations

(a) A instigates B to murder C. B refuses to do so. A is guilty of abetting B to commit murder. (b) A instigates B to murder D. B in pursuance of the instigation stabs D. D recovers from the wound. A is guilty of instigating B to commit murder.

Explanation 3. — It is not necessary that the person abetted should be capable by law of committing an offence, or that he should have the same guilty intention or knowledge as that of the abettor, or any guilty intention or knowledge.

(a) A, with a guilty intention, abets a child or a lunatic to commit an act which would be an offence, if committed by a person capable by law of committing an offence, and having the same intention as A. Here A, whether the act be committed or not, is guilty of abetting an offence.

(b) A, with the intention of murdering Z, instigates B, a child under seven years of age, to do an act which causes Z’s death. B, in consequence of the abetment, does the act in the absence of A and thereby causes Z’s death. Here, though B was not capable by law of committing an offence, A is liable to be punished in the same manner as if B had been capable by law of committing an offence, and had committed murder, and he is therefore subject to the punishment of death.

(c) A instigates B to set fire to a dwelling-house. B, in consequence of the unsoundness of his mind, being incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is wrong or contrary to law, sets fire to the house in consequence of A’s instigation. B has committed no offence, but A is guilty of abetting the offence of setting fire to a dwelling-house, and is liable to the punishment provided for that offence.

(d) A, intending to cause a theft to be committed, instigates B to take property belonging to Z out of Z’s possession. A induces B to believe that the property belongs to A. B takes the property out of Z’s possession, in good faith, believing it to be A’s property. B, acting under this misconception, does not take dishonestly, and therefore does not commit theft. But A is guilty of abetting theft, and is liable to the same punishment as if B had committed theft.

Explanation 4. — The abetment of an offence being an offence, the abetment of such an abetment is also an offence.

Illustration

A instigates B to instigate C to murder Z. B accordingly instigates C to murder Z, and C commits that offence in consequence of B’s instigation. B is liable to be punished for his offence with the punishment for murder; and, as A instigated B to commit the offence, A is also liable to the same punishment.

Explanation 5. — It is not necessary to the commission of the offence of abetment by conspiracy that the abettor should concert the offence with the person who commits it. It is sufficient if he engages in the conspiracy in pursuance of which the offence is committed.

Illustration

A concerts with B a plan for poisoning Z. It is agreed that A shall administer the poison. B then explains the plan to C mentioning that a third person is to administer the poison, but without mentioning A’s name. C agrees to procure the poison, and procures and delivers it to B for the purpose of its being used in the manner explained. A administers the poison; Z dies in consequence. Here, though A and C have not conspired together, yet C has been engaged in the conspiracy in pursuance of which Z has been murdered. C has therefore committed the offence defined in this section and is liable to the punishment for murder.

Section 108A. Abetment in India of offences outside India. — A person abets an offence within the meaning of this Code who, in [India], abets the commission of any act without and beyond [India] which would constitute an offence if committed in [India].

Illustration

A, in [India], instigates B, a foreigner in Goa, to commit a murder in Goa, A is guilty of abetting murder.]

Section 109: Punishment of abetment if the act abetted is committed in consequence and where no express provision is made for its punishment. — Whoever abets any offence shall, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with the punishment provided for the offence.

Explanation. — An act or offence is said to be committed in consequence of abetment, when it is committed in consequence of the instigation, or in pursuance of the conspiracy, or with the aid which constitutes the abetment.

Illustrations

(a) A offers a bribe to B, a public servant, as a reward for showing A some favour in the exercise of B’s official functions. B accepts the bribe. A has abetted the offence defined in section 161.

(b) A instigates B to give false evidence. B, in consequence of the instigation, commits that offence. A is guilty of abetting that offence, and is liable to the same punishment as B.

(c) A and B conspire to poison Z. A, in pursuance of the conspiracy, procures the poison and delivers it to B in order that he may administer it to Z. B, in pursuance of the conspiracy, administers the poison to Z in A’s absence and thereby causes Z’s death. Here B is guilty of murder. A is guilty of abetting that offence by conspiracy, and is liable to the punishment for murder.

Section 110: Punishment of abetment if person abetted does act with different intention from that of abettor.—Whoever abets the commission of an offence shall, if the person abetted does the act with a different intention or knowledge from that of the abettor, be punished with the punishment provided for the offence which would have been committed if the act had been done with the intention or knowledge of the abettor and with no other.
Section 111: Liability of abettor when one act abetted and different act done.—When an Act is abetted and a different act is done, the abettor is liable for the act done, in the same manner and to the same extent as if he had directly abetted it:

Provided the act done was a probable consequence of the abetment, and was committed under the influence of the instigation, or with the aid or in pursuance of the conspiracy which constituted the abetment.

Illustrations

(a) A instigates a child to put poison into the food of Z, and gives him poison for that purpose. The child, in consequence of the instigation, by mistake puts the poison into the food of Y, which is by the side of that of Z. Here, if the child was acting under the influence of A’s instigation, and the act done was under the circumstances a probable consequence of the abetment, A is liable in the same manner and to the same extent as if he had instigated the child to put the poison into the food of Y.

(b) A instigates B to burn Z’s house. B sets fire to the house and at the same time commits theft of property there. A, though guilty of abetting the burning of the house, is not guilty of abetting the theft; for the theft was a distinct act, and not a probable consequence of the burning.

(c) A instigates B and C to break into an inhabited house at midnight for the purpose of robbery, and provides them with arms for that purpose. B and C break into the house, and being resisted by Z, one of the inmates, murder Z. Here, if that murder was the probable consequence of the abetment, A is liable to the punishment provided for murder.

Section 112: Abettor when liable to cumulative punishment for act abetted and for act done.—If the act for which the abettor is liable under the last preceding section is committed in addition to the act abetted, and constitute a distinct offence, the abettor is liable to punishment for each of the offences.

Illustration

A instigates B to resist by force a distress made by a public servant. B, in consequence, resists that distress. In offering the resistance, B voluntarily causes grievous hurt to the officer executing the distress. As B has committed both the offence of resisting the distress, and the offence of voluntarily causing grievous hurt, B is liable to punishment for both these offences; and, if A knew that B was likely voluntarily to cause grievous hurt in resisting the distress A will also be liable to punishment for each of the offences.

Section 113: Liability of abettor for an effect caused by the act abetted different from that intended by the abettor. —When an act is abetted with the intention on the part of the abettor of causing a particular effect, and an act for which the abettor is liable in consequence of the abetment, causes a different effect from that intended by the abettor, the abettor is liable for the effect caused, in the same manner and to the same extent as if he had abetted the act with the intention of causing that effect, provided he knew that the act abetted was likely to cause that effect.

Illustration

A instigates B to cause grievous hurt to Z. B, in consequence of the instigation, causes grievous hurt to Z. Z dies in consequence. Here, if A knew that the grievous hurt abetted was likely to cause death, A is liable to be punished with the punishment provided for murder.

Section 114: Abettor present when offence is committed. — Whenever any person, who is absent would be liable to be punished as an abettor, is present when the act or offence for which he would be punishable in consequence of the abetment is committed, he shall be deemed to have committed such act or offence.
Section 115: Abetment of offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life.—if offence not committed.—Whoever abets the commission of an offence punishable with death or 1 [imprisonment for life], shall, if that offence be not committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine;

if act causing harm be done in consequence.—and if any act for which the abettor is liable in consequence of the abetment, and which causes hurt to any person, is done, the abettor shall be liable to imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to fourteen years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Illustration

A instigates B to murder Z. The offence is not committed. If B had murdered Z, he would have been subject to the punishment of death or 1[imprisonment for life]. Therefore A is liable to imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and also to a fine; and if any hurt be done to Z in consequence of the abetment, he will be liable to imprisonment for a term which may extend to fourteen years, and to fine.

Section 116: Abetment of offence punishable with imprisonment—if offence be not committed. — Whoever abets an offence punishable with imprisonment shall, if that offence be not committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with imprisonment of any description provided for that offence for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term provided for that offence; or with such fine as is provided for that offence, or with both;

if abettor or person abetted be a public servant whose duty it is to prevent offence. — and if the abettor or the person abetted is a public servant, whose duty it is to prevent the commission of such offence, the abettor shall be punished with imprisonment of any description provided for that offence, for a term which may extend to one-half of the longest term provided for that offence, or with such fine as is provided for the offence, or with both.

Illustrations

(a) A offers a bribe to B, a public servant, as a reward for showing. A some favour in the exercise of B’s official functions. B refuses to accept the bribe. A is punishable under this section.

(b) A instigates B to give false evidence. Here, if B does not give false evidence, A has nevertheless committed the offence defined in this section, and is punishable accordingly.

(c) A, a police-officer, whose duty it is to prevent robbery, abets the commission of robbery. Here, though the robbery be not committed, A is liable to one-half of the longest term of imprisonment provided for that offence, and also to fine.

(d) B abets the commission of a robbery by A, a police-officer, whose duty it is to prevent that offence. Here, though the robbery be not committed, B is liable to one-half of the longest term of imprisonment provided for the offence of robbery, and also to fine.

Section 117: Abetting commission of offence by the public or by more than ten persons. — Whoever abets the commission of an offence by the public generally or by any number or class of persons exceeding ten, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

Illustration

A affixes in a public place a placard instigating a sect consisting of more than ten members to meet at a certain time and place, for the purpose of attacking the members of an adverse sect, while engaged in a procession. A has committed the offence defined in this section.

Section 118: Concealing design to commit offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. — Whoever intending to facilitate or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby facilitate the commission of an offence punishable with death or 1[imprisonment for life],

voluntarily conceals by any act or illegal omission, or by the use of encryption or any other information hiding tool, the existence of a design] to commit such offence or makes any representation which he knows to be false respecting such design,

if offence be committed; if offence be not committed. — shall, if that offence be committed, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or, if the offence be not committed, with imprisonment of either description, for a term which may extend to three years; and in either case shall also be liable to fine.

Illustration

A, knowing that dacoity is about to be committed at B, falsely informs the Magistrate that a dacoity is about to be committed at C, a place in an opposite direction, and thereby misleads the Magistrate with intent to facilitate the commission of the offence. The dacoity is committed at B in pursuance of the design. A is punishable under this section.

Section 119: Public servant concealing design to commit offence which it is his duty to prevent. — Whoever, being a public servant intending to facilitate or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby facilitate the commission of an offence which it is his duty as such public servant to prevent,

voluntarily conceals, by any act or illegal omission or by the use of encryption or any other information hiding tool, the existence of a design] to commit such offence, or makes any representation which he knows to be false respecting such design,

if offence be committed. — shall, if the offence be committed, be punished with imprisonment of any description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-half of the longest term of such imprisonment, or with such fine as is provided for that offence, or with both;

if offence be punishable with death, etc. — or, if the offence be punishable with death or [imprisonment for life], with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years;

if offence be not committed. — or, if the offence be not committed, shall be punished with imprisonment of any description provided for the offence for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of such imprisonment or with such fine as is provided for the offence, or with both.

Illustration

A, an officer of police, being legally bound to give information of all designs to commit robbery which may come to his knowledge, and knowing that B designs to commit robbery, omits to give such information, with intent to facilitate the commission of that offence. Here A has by an illegal omission concealed the existence of B’s design, and is liable to punishment according to the provision of this section.

Section 120: Concealing design to commit offence punishable with imprisonment. — Whoever, intending to facilitate or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby facilitate the commission of an offence punishable with imprisonment, voluntarily conceals, by any act or illegal omission, the existence of a design to commit such offence, or makes any representation which he knows to be false respecting such design,

if offence be committed; if offence be not committed. — shall, if the offence be committed, be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-fourth, and, if the offence be not committed, to one-eight, of the longest term of such imprisonment, or with such fine as is provided for the offence, or with both.

Next Story
MEXT Scholarship 2025

JAPANESE GOVERNMENT (MEXT) SCHOLARSHIP FOR 2025 (RESEARCH STUDENTS)

The Embassy of Japan in New Delhi has announced invitation for Indian students to apply for MEXT fellowships to pursue Master’s and Ph.D. studies in Japan. The deadline for application submission is May 3rd, 2024. For further details, please refer to the attached flyer. We request that you share this information with your contacts who may be interested in this opportunity.
Type Research Students
Level Graduate school level
(Research/Masters Course/Ph.D. course)
Age Under 35 years old (Applicants, in principle, must have been born on or after April 2, 1990)
Fields of study (A)Humanities (B)Social Science (C)Mathematical Science (D)Physics (E)Chemistry and Chemical Engineering (F)Biology and Biotechnology (G)Agriculture and Fishery (H)Environmental Science (I)Pharmaceutical Science (J)Geology and Geoinformatics (K)Civil Engineering (L) Architecture (M)Material Science / Engineering (N)Electrical Engineering (O)Electronics & Communications Engineering (P)Mechanical Engineering (Q)Aerospace Engineering (R)Robotics (S)Information Technology (T)Sports Science
Qualifications and Conditions In addition to the Qualifications and Eligibility Criteria listed in the Guidelines, the following would apply:

1.For Master’s course / Doctoral course (first phase)
Bachelor’s Degree in the relevant field with minimum 70% marks. The candidates should obtain their mark sheet and degree on or before September 30, 2025 for the October 2025 batch.

2. Doctoral course (second phase)
Master’s degree in the relevant field with minimum 70% marks. Candidates should have practical research/teaching/work experience after obtaining the prescribed qualification on or before 30th September 2025 for the October 2025 batch.

Term of scholarship Non-regular students:
The scholarship period will start from April, September or October 2025 until the end of March 2027.
*From last year, research only (non-regular) course is abolished.

Regular students enrolled in master’s, doctoral, or professional graduate courses:
Regardless of the date of arrival, the scholarship period shall be the necessary period for the completion of the respective regular course (hereinafter referred to as “the standard period of study”. See “13. ACADEMIC PATHWAY FOR RESEARCH STUDENTS” for the standard period of study for each course).

Number of scholarships To be announced
Stipend 1.Students receiving the preparatory education and non-regular students: 143,000 yen (Approx. Rs.78,600) per month
2. Regular students enrolled in master’s or professional degree courses: 144,000 yen (Approx. Rs.79,200) per month
3. Regular students enrolled in doctoral courses: 145,000 yen (Approx. Rs. 79,700) per month.
Education fees Exempted
Traveling Expenses Round-trip airfare will be provided
How to apply and where to send the completed forms The document screening will be conducted on the basis of the preliminary application form given below. If you wish to apply, please e-mail the form (as an attachment) to us. The last date of submission of the application form is 3 May, 11.59 pm.

Please note that the file should be a Microsoft Word file only and should not exceed 1 MB. Applications received at the following email id only, shall be considered as submitted application form.

The Preliminary Application Form
Email: scholarship-india@nd.mofa.go.jp

Application received after the aforesaid date and time will be automatically rejected. Also, files in other formats such as scanned copies of hand written documents, pdf, PowerPoint, google drive, link to google drive, google docs etc. will also be rejected automatically

No supporting documents are required to be submitted with the preliminary application.

You will only submit the application form along with supporting documents as mentioned in the guidelines if you are shortlisted after the Preliminary Application Form Screening round.

Schedule of the Preliminary Selection Application Deadline (must): 3 May 2024

Application Screening: May 2024

Notification of result of Preliminary Application Form – 4th Week of May

Written Examination: 15 June 2024

Interview: June 15-17

* After the written test, interview will continue from June 15, 3pm onwards, and it will continue for the next two days. You are therefore advised to make necessary arrangement to attend the interview.

Contact Japan Information Centre (JIC),
Embassy of Japan,
50-G, Shantipath, Chanakyapuri,
New Delhi – 110021.
Tel: +91-11-46104865

We will try to answer your genuine queries as much as possible but avoid calling us for confirming information already mentioned in the guidelines/website or for trivial questions.

Past Examination questions are available! https://www.studyinjapan.go.jp/en/planning/scholarship/application/exam

 

See/Download Application Guidelines

Next Story
Electric Vehicle Policy

E-Vehicle Policy Approved to Promote India as a Manufacturing Destination for e-vehicles

The Government of India has approved a scheme to promote India as a manufacturing destination so that e-vehicles with the latest technology can be manufactured in the country. The policy is designed to attract investments in the e-vehicle space by reputed global EV manufacturers.

This will provide Indian consumers with access to latest technology, boost the Make in India initiative, strengthen the EV ecosystem by promoting healthy competition among EV players leading to high volume of production, economies of scale, lower cost of production, reduce imports of crude Oil, lower trade deficit, reduce air pollution, particularly in cities, and will have a positive impact on health and environment.

The policy entails the following: –

  • Minimum Investment required: Rs 4150 Cr (∼USD 500 Mn)
  • No limit on maximum Investment
  • Timeline for manufacturing: 3 years for setting up manufacturing facilities in India, and to start commercial production of e-vehicles, and reach 50% domestic value addition (DVA) within 5 years at the maximum.
  • Domestic value addition (DVA) during manufacturing: A localization level of 25% by the 3rd year and 50% by the 5th year will have to be achieved
  • The customs duty of 15% (as applicable to CKD units) would be applicable for a period of 5 years
  • Vehicle of CIF value of USD 35,000 or above will be permissible
  •  The total number of EV allowed for import would be determined by the total duty foregone or investment made, whichever is lower, subject to a maximum of ₹6,484 Cr (equal to incentive under PLI scheme).
  • Not more than 8,000 EVs per year would be permissible for import under this scheme. The carryover of unutilized annual import limits would be permitted.
  • The Investment commitment made by the company will have to be backed up by a bank guarantee in lieu of the custom duty forgone
  • The Bank guarantee will be invoked in case of non-achievement of DVA and minimum investment criteria defined under the scheme guidelines.

Press Release

Link of Gazette Notification of E- Vehicle Policy

Next Story
The Rising Sun Conclave

The Rising Sun Conclave Deepens India-Japan Business Relations

In the heart of New Delhi, amidst the bustling streets and the vibrant culture, an event of significant importance unfolded – The Rising Sun Conclave. This event served as a pivotal platform for connecting businesses, fostering people-to-people connections, and initiating constructive discussions aimed at enhancing the economic ties between India and Japan.

Organized by the visionary Nupur Tewari, a renowned personality with a mission to bridge the information gap and facilitate stronger ties between the two nations, The Rising Sun Conclave brought together key stakeholders from both India and Japan. The event showcased the rich tapestry of opportunities that lie in the bilateral relations, emphasizing the shared values and complementary strengths of the two nations.

One of the highlights of the conclave was the panel discussions featuring eminent representatives from leading business organizations of both countries. These discussions delved into various aspects of bilateral trade and investment, exploring avenues for collaboration and innovation. Experts exchanged insights on market trends, regulatory frameworks, and emerging sectors, offering valuable perspectives to the audience.

The people-to-people connect aspect of the conclave was equally significant. Entrepreneurs, executives, and professionals from diverse industries had the opportunity to network and forge meaningful relationships. These interactions laid the foundation for future collaborations and partnerships, fostering a deeper understanding and appreciation of each other’s cultures and business practices.

Moreover, The Rising Sun Conclave served as a forum for dialogue on how to further improve the business conditions between India and Japan. Participants shared ideas and suggestions aimed at overcoming challenges, streamlining processes, and leveraging opportunities for mutual benefit. From enhancing trade facilitation measures to promoting technology transfer and skill development, a range of actionable recommendations emerged from the discussions.

Rising Sun Conclave
Rising Sun Conclave

In the wake of global uncertainties and shifting geopolitical dynamics, the importance of strong and resilient economic partnerships cannot be overstated. India and Japan, as two major economies in the Asia-Pacific region, have a strategic interest in deepening their collaboration. The Rising Sun Conclave exemplified the commitment of both nations to fostering closer ties and harnessing the full potential of their partnership.

Looking ahead, events like The Rising Sun Conclave will continue to play a crucial role in nurturing the India-Japan relationship. By providing a platform for dialogue, collaboration, and exchange, these initiatives contribute to the development of a vibrant and dynamic ecosystem that benefits businesses, communities, and economies on both sides.

As the curtains draw on The Rising Sun Conclave, the spirit of collaboration and partnership it has ignited will continue to illuminate the path towards a brighter future for India and Japan. With visionary leaders like Nupur Tewari at the helm, the journey towards stronger and deeper relations between the two nations is set to flourish, guided by the rising sun of opportunity and innovation.

Next Story
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

Navigating Intellectual Property Strategies: Japanese Businesses in India’s Auto Sector

The automotive sector stands as a cornerstone of India’s industrial landscape, with robust growth and evolving dynamics. Japanese businesses, renowned for their technological prowess and innovation in this domain, have significantly contributed to India’s automotive industry.
As they expand their footprint in India, navigating intellectual property (IP) strategies becomes paramount for sustaining competitive advantage. This article delves into the intricacies of IP strategies adopted by Japanese businesses operating in India’s auto sector, supported by empirical data and insightful analysis.
Overview of India’s Auto Sector:
India’s automotive industry is one of the largest in the world, characterized by diverse offerings spanning two-wheelers, cars, commercial vehicles, and electric vehicles (EVs). With a growing middle class and increasing disposable income, India presents a lucrative market for automotive manufacturers.
Japanese Presence in India’s Auto Sector:
Japanese automotive giants such as Toyota, Suzuki, Honda, Nissan, and Yamaha have established a formidable presence in India. Their expertise in technology, quality, and efficiency has significantly influenced the Indian automotive landscape.
Importance of Intellectual Property in the Auto Sector:
Intellectual property serves as the bedrock of innovation and competitiveness in the auto sector.
Patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets play pivotal roles in protecting innovations, designs, brands, and business processes.
IP Strategies Adopted by Japanese Businesses:
Patent Protection: Japanese auto manufacturers prioritize patent filings to safeguard their technological innovations.  These patents cover various aspects including engine technologies, safety features, fuel efficiency enhancements, and electric vehicle advancements.
Fact Sheet: According to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), Japanese auto companies collectively filed thousands of patents in India over the past decade. Toyota filed the highest number of patents among Japanese automakers in India, focusing on hybrid and electric vehicle technologies.
Trademark Management: Maintaining a strong brand identity is crucial for Japanese auto companies in India. They meticulously manage trademarks to protect their brand equity and prevent infringement.
Fact Sheet: Suzuki’s Swift and Honda’s Activa are among the most recognized trademarks in India’s automotive market. Nissan faced trademark disputes in India, highlighting the importance of proactive trademark management.
Collaboration and Licensing: Japanese auto manufacturers often engage in collaborations and licensing agreements with Indian counterparts to leverage local expertise and facilitate technology transfer while ensuring IP protection.
Fact Sheet: Suzuki’s partnership with Maruti Suzuki India Limited (MSIL) exemplifies successful collaboration, leading to the proliferation of Suzuki’s technology and models in the Indian market. Licensing agreements between Japanese and Indian companies have accelerated the adoption of advanced safety and emission control technologies in India’s auto sector.
Litigation and Enforcement: Infringement of intellectual property rights remains a significant challenge in India’s auto sector. Japanese businesses resort to litigation and enforcement measures to protect their IP assets and deter unauthorized use.
Fact Sheet: Honda pursued legal action against counterfeit spare parts manufacturers, emphasizing the importance of stringent enforcement to maintain product quality and consumer trust. Toyota initiated legal proceedings to protect its hybrid technology patents from unauthorized use by domestic manufacturers.
Empirical Data Analysis: An empirical analysis of patent filings, trademark registrations, litigation cases, and collaboration agreements provides insights into the IP strategies of Japanese businesses in India’s auto sector. This data underscores the proactive approach adopted by Japanese companies to safeguard their intellectual property while capitalizing on India’s burgeoning automotive market.
Conclusion: In conclusion, intellectual property strategies are integral to the success and sustainability of Japanese businesses operating in India’s auto sector. By leveraging patents, trademarks, collaborations, and enforcement mechanisms, Japanese auto manufacturers can foster innovation, protect their investments, and maintain a competitive edge in India’s dynamic automotive landscape.
References:
1. World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Reports.
2. Indian Patent Office Database.
3. Automotive Industry Reports and Market Analysis.
4. Legal Cases and News Articles on IP Enforcement in India’s Auto Sector.
Subscribe Now
Do you want to subscribe to our newsletter?

Fill this form to get mails from us.