• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Contact form
Patentanwaltskanzlei

Patentanwaltskanzlei

  • Deutsch

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email
MENUMENU
  • Services
    • Advice On Protective IP Rights
    • Patent Application /TM Registration
    • Enforcement Of IP Rights
    • Defence Against IP Rights Enforcement
    • Costs
  • Company
    • Fields of Law
      • Patent Law
      • Utility Model Law
      • Employees‘ Inventions
      • Trademark Law
      • Design Law
      • Trademark and Product Piracy
      • Expert Opinions
    • Our Law Firm
      • Dr. Tim Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Klaus Zimmermann
      • Zhichao Ying
      • Walter Benjamin Feldheim
    • Commitment
  • Contact
    • Where To Find Us
    • Write us!
    • Request call back
  • Blog

Cancellation of a registered trademark: Tesla won before Beijing Court

28. November 2017

Another signal for China’s efforts to improve the protection of property rights comes from a new ruling by the Beijing court:  Tesla, the American manufacturer for sustainable transport,  recently won a case for the cancellation of a similar trademark registration.

Tesla won before Beijing Intellectual Property Court

China will strengthen the protection of property rights in order to provide sustained impetus for economic development, it was said last week after an executive meeting of the Chinese State Council chaired by Prime Minister Li Keqiang. And that is how the Beijing Intellectual Property Court ruled a few weeks ago. Tesla prevailed with the claim of trademark cancellation against the state administration for industry and commerce (Trademark Review and Adjudication Board, TRAB) and the also defendant, the Trading Company Beijing Hua Ruikai.

Are goods similar even if they are registered in different classes?

Interesting in this case is the Court’s assessment of whether goods are similar when they fall under different classes of the Chinese classification of goods and services. The decision as to whether goods or services are similar is made on a case-by-case basis. Generally speaking, goods or services that fall under different classes or subclasses are not similar. However, goods are considered to be similar if they are relatively similar in function, purpose, distribution and consumer groups. This means that China complies to a large extent with the requirements of WIPO, the Nice Classification and the Standard for Trial of Similar Goods or Services.

Tesla filed an action for annulment against a registered trademark of the defendants in Class 9 (11485034) on the following grounds:

  • the trade mark is a similar trade mark relating to similar goods in comparison with Tesla’s earlier trade marks registered in Class 12 (No 7792673 and No 8008885)
  • the mark infringes Tesla’s trademark right on purpose

Nice-classfication

The trademark of the defendant, the Trading Company Beijing Hua Ruikai, had been issued to the defendant, designated goods of class 9, such as electric welding and soldering equipment, but also vehicle batteries. Teslas trade mark registrations include class 12 goods such as boats, aircraft, bicycles, but also engines and drives for land vehicles.

The Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (TRAB) rejected Tesla’s application for annulment in 2015. However, the TRAB did not explain its decision. Tesla refused to accept the ruling and filed a complaint with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court.

Beijing Intellectual Property Court overturned TRAB decision

Beijing CourtThe Beijing Intellectual Property Court annulled TRAB’s decision and found that the goods are similar and Tesla had rightly applied for annulment.

The court gave the following justification:

  • Tesla presented evidence such as demonstrations of her practice in the business, media reports and documents to demonstrate that batteries and electric vehicles are closely related to each other in terms of function, type of use, manufacturing department, distribution channel and target consumer.
  • The most important part of an electric vehicle is the battery, which is always sold together with electric vehicles.
  • When consumers need to change the battery, they will usually first visit the original manufacturer. And the original battery manufacturer is Tesla.

Chinese courts for intellectual property have a good reputation

It was not until the end of 2014 that three courts for exclusive intellectual property rights were established in China, in Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou. By October 2017, more than 33,000 cases had been decided there, according to the report of the Supreme People’s Court in China. The Beijing IP Court deals with patent, trademark, copyright and unfair competition litigation. It has the power to issue injunctions and to grant damages. Since its establishment in 2014, the court has earned a reputation for fair and equitable judgment. Amongst others, Qualcomm won a patent dispute with the Chinese smartphone manufacturer Meizu. And now the American company Tesla was win against the state administration for industry and commerce (Trademark Review and Adjudication Board, TRAB).

Intellectual Property Dispute between China and the USA

It was in October 2017 that there was a dispute between China and the USA over the protection of intellectual property in China. The reason for this was an American investigation into China’s alleged illegal transfer of intellectual property rights under Section 301, which China does not recognise. And points out that there are more than 90 bilateral working groups between the two major economies. Infringements of intellectual property rights would be committed not only in China but also in the USA, say the Chinese.

Maybe these cases are also interesting for you:

  • Import ban on iPhones in China? Qualcomm sued Apple in China (Nov 2017)
  • Chinese Court ruled infringement of domestic shoemakers (Aug 2017)
  • Trump orders investigation against China (Aug 2017)
  • First Time in China: Chivas granted Judicial Protection (March 2017)
  • How to protect your brand for the Chinese market (May 2016)

 

Are you interested in trade mark protection for your company?

Please take your chance and contact us. Our lawyers are experienced in trademark and patent law, national and international law.

CAT-call_en
 

Sources:

USTR Section 301

WIPO nice classification

Beijing IP Court Decision Tesla

pictures:

Free_Photos /pixabay.com / CCO License  || Blomst /pixabay.com / CCO License  

 

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 

Category iconProduct- and Trademark piracy,  Trademark Law Tag iconBeijing Intellectual Property Court,  China,  Chinese,  Intellectual Property,  Tesla,  TRAB,  U.S.,  USA

Primary Sidebar

More articles about: Product- and Trademark piracy

All articles

Blog Menu

  • Design Law
  • Healthcare & Lifesciences
  • International Intellectual Property
  • Licenses
  • News from our law firm
  • Overall
  • Patent Law
  • Product- and Trademark piracy
  • Trademark Law

Recent Posts

  • What is the public allowed to know? 3. June 2024
  • BPatG: Patent claim of cancer drug on active substance as salt 7. March 2022
  • Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022 4. March 2022
  • CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks? 25. February 2022

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Das könnte Sie auch interessieren:

3. June 2024
What is the public allowed to know?

What is the public allowed to know?

4. March 2022
Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

25. February 2022
CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks?

CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks?

24. February 2022
EOS lip balm no 3D trademark – appeal before ECJ not admissible

EOS lip balm no 3D trademark – appeal before ECJ not admissible

21. February 2022
CFI: Pumpkin seed oil + PGI symbol

CFI: Pumpkin seed oil + PGI symbol

15. February 2022
SPOTIFY v POTIFY – a ‘pot’ app

SPOTIFY v POTIFY – a ‘pot’ app

Contact us or request a call back

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Request a call back

Footer

Contact

Hanauer Landstrasse 287
D – 60314 Frankfurt am Main
Deutschland
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 199
[email protected]

Office Hours
Moday – Friday:   08:00-18:00

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Law Firm

  • Request non-binding call back
  • Company
  • Our Law Firm
  • ISO Certificate
  • Privacy Policy
  • Data handling for clients
  • Imprint

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email

Newsletter Signup

Newsletter INT

© MD LEGAL Patentanwalt, European Patent Attorney PartG

Contact Form

 

Give us a call, send us an email or fill out the contact form.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

Rückruf INT

Please note: If we deal specifically with your individual case, this is what is known as an initial consultation. In accordance with Section 34 of the Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz, this incurs one-off costs of 190 euros plus MwSt. We will be happy to assist you in a personal consultation after our telephone call.

Kontaktformular

 

Rufen Sie uns an, schicken Sie uns eine Mail oder füllen Sie das Kontaktformular aus.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

Rückruf

Um dieses Angebot nutzen zu können, müssen Sie der Speicherung Ihrer personenbezogenen Daten zustimmen. Wir behandeln diese streng vertraulich und verwenden sie nur zur Kontaktaufnahme mit Ihnen. Mehr dazu lesen Sie in unserer Datenschutzerklärung.

Bitte beachten Sie: Wenn wir uns konkret mit Ihrem Einzelfall befassen, ist dies eine sogenannte Erstberatung. Für eine solche entstehen gemäß § 34 Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz einmalige Kosten in Höhe von 190 Euro plus MwSt. Gerne helfen wir Ihnen im Anschluss an unser Telefonat in einem persönlichen Beratungsgespräch weiter.