Court Rules Local Electrical Firm's TM Similar to VOLVO
The dispute is between the Sweden-based VOLVO Trademark Holding AB and VOLOK沃尔科 Electrical Co,. Ltd in Zhejiang Province of China over the trademark VOLOK沃尔科.
Recently, Beijing High People’s court made a judgment, held that No.9047759 trademark “VOLOK沃尔科 (trademark in dispute) had constituted similarity with No.1981782 “VOLVO” (cited TM1) and No.4664260 “” (cited TM2) on the same or similar products. The judgment brought the 3- year- long dispute to an end and upheld the choice invalidating the trademark in dispute created by Trademark Review and adjudication Board (TRAB).
The trademark at issue was filed for registration by VOLOK沃尔科 in january 2011 and would later be certified to be used on product as well as materials for electricity mains (wires, cables) and capacitors. In july 2015, VOLVO filed an invalidation request to the TRAB. The cited TM1 and cited TM2 were filed by VOLVO in Oct 2001 and may 2005 respectively, and would be approved for
registration in February 2003 and may 2008, certified for used on product as well as combustion
instruments, wires, and capacitors. In may 2016, the TRAB created a ruling that the registration and use of the trademark at issue would not cause misunderstanding of the general public in the quality and origin of the product, however, the trademark at issue and also the 2 cited TMs constituted similarity in the same or similar products. On this ground, TRAB determined to invalidate the trademark at issue.
The disgruntled VOLOK沃尔科 then brought the case to beijing ip Court.
After hearing, beijing ip Court command that the trademark at issue and also the 2 cited TMs constituted similarity in the same or similar product. The court denied the request of VOLOK沃尔科 at the first stance.
Then VOLOK沃尔科 appealed to beijing Higher People’s Court. the higher court command that the certified products of the trademark at issue and also the 2 cited TMs extremely converged on function, use, distribution channel and customers, constituting similarity within the same or similar product.
The trademark at issue and also the 2 cited TMs were similar in overall design, words formation and calling, and it’s hard to inform from the meaning. additionally, 2 cited TMs had enjoyed high popularity in vehicles and relevant instruments after long- time and wide use and promotion.
In this affiliation, beijing High thoroughbred that the trademark at issue and also the 2 cited TMs constituted similarity in the same or similar product and rejected VOLOK沃尔科.Previous Post Next Post
- Disclosure, Deposit and Declaratory requirements in India for inventions based on Biological material
- Accorda Therapeutics v. Roxane Labs ($-aminopyridine)
- Scope of Section 3(i): An analysis on diagnostic methods of treatment
- Darts-ip: The Power Of Case Law
- “Fate of Patent Working Requirements (Form 27) in the New Year”