08 October 2026
Businesses selling aftermarket parts and accessories often need to refer to another company’s brand.
A replacement part might be described as suitable for a particular vehicle, device or model. That can be commercially necessary.
However, there is a line between identifying compatibility and using another business’s trade mark in a way that suggests origin, endorsement or association.
A recent Federal Court decision involving Toyota and an aftermarket 4WD accessories business is a useful reminder of how much the context matters.
The case involved products and advertising using Toyota marks including HILUX and LAND CRUISER. Some of the products were counterfeit, while other uses of the marks appeared in descriptions of aftermarket products.
The Court found infringement in a number of instances, including in relation to counterfeit HILUX-branded tail lights.
Even so, not every use of Toyota’s trade marks was treated the same way.
Describing compatibility is not automatically infringement
A key distinction was whether the trade mark was being used to indicate where the goods came from, or simply to describe the vehicle or product the accessory was intended to fit.
That distinction matters for businesses selling:
-
replacement parts;
-
accessories;
-
compatible products;
-
repair products; and
-
components designed for use with another manufacturer’s goods.
Of the advertisements considered by the Court, some were found not to infringe because the trade mark use was used descriptively rather than acting as a badge of origin.
The practical lesson is that simply mentioning another brand is not necessarily the problem. The bigger issue is how the brand is presented and what impression the overall advertisement gives consumers.
Drop shipping can complicate the analysis
The case also considered LAND CRUISER branded armrests that were shipped directly from an overseas supplier to Australian customers.
On the particular facts, the Court did not find trade mark infringement in relation to that conduct.
That does not mean drop shipping provides a safe harbour from trade mark infringement. The outcome depended on the specific way the goods were sold, imported and delivered. Other conduct by the same business did infringe.
What businesses should think about
If you sell aftermarket or compatible products, it is worth reviewing more than just the product name.
Look at:
-
how prominently the third-party brand appears;
-
whether the wording clearly identifies the product as aftermarket or compatible;
-
whether the brand appears on the product itself;
-
whether the overall presentation suggests sponsorship or approval;
-
where the goods are sourced; and
-
how they are supplied to customers.
The case also shows that trade mark infringement may not be the only issue. Misleading conduct, passing off and contractual obligations can all become relevant depending on the circumstances.
For aftermarket businesses, small differences in wording, packaging and presentation can have significant legal consequences.
