Continental Tire Fails to Enjoin Use of Namesake TM by Local Auto Club

发布时间: 2017/12/6 10:55:00

  A no small number of everyday motorists in China may very likely be familiar with two namesake brands, Continental tires produced by the German Company Continental Gummi-Werke AGContinental AG and China Automobile AssociationCAA which provides rescue services. But much fewer would know about the intense trademark dispute between them.


  The 3-year dispute has finally come to an end recently. On 30, October 2017, the Beijing High People's Court made the final judgment, overturning the decision made by the Trademark Review and Adjudication BoardTRAB on revoking No.4374872 trademark大陆(Continental and ordering the TRAB to review it.


  The trademark in dispute was filed for registration in November 2004and certified to be used in Class 37 products including vehicle maintenance and repairs.


  In October 2010, Continental AG made a revocation application to the Trademark OfficeTMO under State Administration for Industry and CommerceSAIC), holding that the trademark had not been used from 8, October 2011 to 7, October 2014, failing to meet the test of use for three consecutive years as provided in the Trademark Law.


  According to file in 2002, Continental AG applied four trademark applications of Continental on the classes of tire repair, tire R&Dfor other parties), tires and tires including spokes.


  In March 2015, the revocation application was rejected by TMO.  Then Continental AG filed a review request to TRAB.


  In March 2016, TRAB revoked the trademark based on the ground that the evidence presented by CAA has failed to form an effective evidence chain to prove the trademark has been used openly, authentically and legitimately in the approved services during the specified period.


  The disgruntled CAA then brought the case to Beijing IP Court. The IP Court agreed with CAA on its proof on having performed auto rescue services in the specified period of time, but disagreed on the club's true willingness in using the trademark in question and actual effective use of it.


  CAA then sought the last resort at the Beijing High People's Court. The Court held the evidence can prove that CAA has carried out services including auto maintenance and repairs during the specified period and that the evidence submitted by CAA has been marked by "CAA" containing the trademark 大陆 in Chinese, which can be regarded as the use of the trademark.


  In this connection, Beijing High revoked the decision made by the IP Court and the TRAB and ordered the TRAB to take another look. by Wang Guohao


Editor Che Xingming


          All contents of this newspaper may not be reproduced or used without express permission


主办单位:中国知识产权报社 未经许可不得复制