Fast Technology reported on December 5 that it was reported that information released by Australia referee document network JADE showed that Audi’s objection to the “ES6, ES7, ES8” Trademark Registering application submitted by NIO in Australia.
The Australia Intellectual Property Office recently ruled that it supported NIO’s core claims, rejected Audi’s objection request, and allowed NIO’s trademark application to continue to be registered in Australia.
It is reported that the battle between Audi and NIO over the name and trademark of the “ES” car started as early as 2021.
Audi claimed at that time that the NIO ES6 and ES8 cars infringed the trademark rights of the Audi S6 and S8.
At the same time, Audi sued NIO in Germany and won the case.
In early 2023, the German court banned NIO from using ES model names.
However, NIO changed the German ES naming sequence to EL in 2022.
The court’s decision did not affect the actual operation of NIO.
Today, the Australian Intellectual Property Office has given a different result from the German court.
The Office has found that there are significant differences between the trademarks of Audi and NIO and do not constitute substantial similarities.
The initials “E” in the NIO trademark constitute a significant distinguishing point, and consumers are unlikely to ignore this element.
Even if “E” stands for electric, the “S” and “numbers” in the Audi series trademarks do not have a clear direction.
, Through the testimony of industry experts, NIO explained the universality of the letter + number naming model in the automotive industry, and believed that consumers have a high understanding of this naming model and will not confuse the source of the trademark due to similar structures.
“E”,”S”, and “number” are equally important in the NIO trademark.
Audi failed to prove that the two sets of trademarks were substantially similar in terms of vision, hearing or concept.
Overall comparison of the trademarks of Audi and NIO, there are significant differences between the two, so they do not constitute a substantial similarity.
, In addition, the Australia Intellectual Property Office supported NIO’s views and rejected Audi’s claims regarding other controversial points: whether the use of NIO’s trademark constituted attachment and caused confusion, whether the NIO trademark violated the Consumer Law or constituted unfair competition, and whether the NIO trademark was misleading.
,[End of this article] If you want to reprint it, please indicate the source: Kuaidi Technology, Editor in charge: Ruofeng, Report the content of the article, return to the home page of First Electric Network>,.
