Case Background
Hyundai Motor Company, the South Korean automotive giant, and its U.S. subsidiary Hyundai Motor America filed this trademark lawsuit in March 2023 against three entities: Hyundai Technology Group, Inc. (a California corporation), General Procurement, Inc. (a California corporation), and Hyundai Technology, Inc. (a Puerto Rican corporation). The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California and assigned to Judge Consuelo B. Marshall with Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick.
Cause
The Plaintiffs accused the Defendants of selling cheap, low-quality personal computing products laptops, tablets, and monitors under the HYUNDAI name, which tarnished the automaker’s globally recognized brand. The Defendants operated through a website (hyundaitechnology.com) and third-party retailers like Amazon, Walmart, and Best Buy. The Plaintiffs argued the Defendants deliberately copied the stylized HYUNDAI trademark in font, color, and design, and falsely claimed on their website that their company was founded by Hyundai Group founder Chung Ju-yung and was affiliated with the pan-Hyundai Group of companies.
Injury
The Plaintiffs claimed the Defendants’ poor-quality products damaged the HYUNDAI brand’s reputation for quality and reliability built over more than three decades in the U.S. market. Consumer reviews of the Defendants’ products described them as “absolute trash,” “cheap quality,” and “horribly sluggish.” The Plaintiffs argued that consumers who purchased these low-quality electronics under the HYUNDAI name developed a negative impression of the broader HYUNDAI brand, directly harming the automaker’s goodwill.
Damages Sought
The Plaintiffs sought monetary damages, disgorgement of the Defendants’ profits, a permanent injunction barring the Defendants from using the HYUNDAI name, cancellation of a federal trademark registration held by the Defendants, and attorneys’ fees.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Hyundai Motor Company and Hyundai Motor America, Inc.
· Counsel for Plaintiff(s): David R. Eberhart | Luann Simmons | Patrick Plassio | Amy Liang | Jeffrey J. Fowler | Kaitlyn Amanda Noelani Gosewehr | Kristin Alvarado | Luann Loraine Simmons | Nathaniel I. Legum | Patrick V. Plassio | Sean T. Andrews | Timothy D Byron
Defendant(s): Hyundai Technology Group, Inc., General Procurement, Inc., and Hyundai Technology, Inc.
· Counsel for Defendant(s): Ronald P. Oines | Alejandro S. Angulo | Talya Goldfinger | Michael Mansour Ahmadshahi | Ayang Joseph Inyang | Brandon Tanter | James A Bryant , II | Rodney S. Diggs
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
During opening statements, the Plaintiffs’ counsel told the jury that Hyundai Technology was “piggybacking” off the automaker’s famous trademark by tricking consumers into believing the two companies were associated. The Plaintiffs presented evidence showing the Defendants’ website falsely claimed the company was founded over 70 years ago by Chung Ju-yung in South Korea—the actual founder of the Hyundai Group—and touted the Hyundai brand’s global ranking and presence in automotive, construction, and shipbuilding. The Defendants were never founded by Chung Ju-yung and were never affiliated with the automaker or the pan-Hyundai Group.
Claims
Federal Trademark Dilution by Tarnishment
The Plaintiffs argued under Section 43(c) of the Lanham Act that the Defendants’ use of the HYUNDAI mark on cheap electronics diluted the famous mark through tarnishment. The HYUNDAI brand, recognized among the top 40 global brands by Interbrand for eight consecutive years, was being associated with products that consumers repeatedly described as poor quality.
False Designation of Origin
Under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, the Plaintiffs claimed the Defendants’ use of a nearly identical stylized HYUNDAI mark and their false website representations created a misleading impression that the Defendants were affiliated with the automaker. The Plaintiffs pointed to a 2021 article on the Defendants’ website headlined “Apple and Hyundai plan to partner to produce electric cars”—a story that actually involved Hyundai Motor, not the Defendants.
Common Law Unfair Competition and California UCL Claim
The Plaintiffs also brought claims for common law unfair competition and violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200). These claims centered on the same pattern of deceptive conduct—copying the stylized mark, making false claims of affiliation, and profiting from the automaker’s reputation.
Defense
The Defendants raised thirteen affirmative defenses, including licensed or authorized use of the mark, fair use, no likelihood of consumer confusion, laches and estoppel, good faith, failure to state a claim, statutes of limitations, and no damages. The Defendants claimed they acquired certain rights to use the HYUNDAI name from Hyundai Bioscience Co., Ltd. (formerly Hyundai IBT Co., Ltd.), a South Korean company that once manufactured televisions and monitors. The Defendants denied their products were of low quality and contested that they ever falsely claimed affiliation with the automaker.
Jury Verdict
On April 10, 2026, the jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of the Plaintiffs on the key claims. On the first question, the jury found that the Defendants diluted the Plaintiffs’ HYUNDAI trademark through tarnishment. On the second question, the jury determined that this dilution was willful, reckless, or willfully blind. The jury also found that the Defendants’ conduct constituted false designation of origin under the Lanham Act.
However, the jury answered “No” on the common law unfair competition claim, finding that the Plaintiffs did not prove this claim by a preponderance of the evidence.
The jury awarded $2.5 million in damages for the Defendants’ willful dilution, false designation of origin, and related violations. The jury further found, by clear and convincing evidence, that the Defendants acted with malice, oppression, or in reckless disregard of the Plaintiffs’ rights a finding that could open the door to enhanced damages or punitive relief in post-trial proceedings.
The case was tried before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall in the Central District of California. The verdict represented a significant win for Hyundai Motor in protecting its globally recognized brand from unauthorized use by unaffiliated companies selling consumer electronics under the same name.
Court documents are available upon request at [email protected]
