Russia: Prior use invalidates a trade mark

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Russia: Prior use invalidates a trade mark

A trade mark registration No 570712 was obtained by a Russian R-line company in relation to goods in Class 12 and services in Class 36. Volkswagen AG appealed against the registration of that trade mark.

150

Volkswagen argued that the disputed trade mark might confuse the consumer in respect of goods in Class 12 because its word element R-LINE is similar to the designation R-Line, which was used in Russia before the date of priority of the disputed trade mark in relation to Volkswagen cars with an R-Line trim. As a result, it argued that the trade mark is associated with Volkswagen rather than the trade mark owner. To support its claim, Volkswagen produced an array of documents, including publications in Russian magazines advertising Volkswagen cars with this trim, sales contracts, etc.

180

The Chamber of Patent Disputes examined the documents and confirmed that a designation similar to the word element R-LINE in the disputed trade mark had been used during the period before the priority date of the disputed trade mark by Volkswagen Group Rus. Ltd. controlled by Volkswagen AG and trading in cars, but not by the trade mark owner.

Consequently, the goods labelled with the disputed trade mark were perceived by consumers as those produced by Volkswagen, i.e. cars. At the same time, the examination board did not find any grounds to state that the disputed trade mark did not conform to the requirements of Article 1483(3) of the Civil Code and that Volkswagen AG, the appellant, could be interested in cancelling registration in relation to other goods in Class 12 unrelated to cars, i.e. air, water and railway transport means.

The appellant's representatives, when asked during the hearing, confirmed that they are not engaged in any activities related to production of air, water or railway transport means.

As a result, the board of examiners decided that the disputed trade mark should be cancelled only in relation to land automotive vehicles of various type such as cars, lorries and trailers.

vladimir

Vladimir Biriulin


Gorodissky & PartnersRussia 129010, MoscowB. Spasskaya Str25, stroenie 3Tel: +7 495 937 6116 / 6109Fax: +7 495 937 6104 / 6123pat@gorodissky.ru www.gorodissky.com 

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Yossi Sivan explains how Israeli judgment is a pro-brand owner departure from the norm and why it sends a strong message that corporate structures are not always a shield
Halim Shehadeh, group CEO of IP firm CWB, says that in the rush to discuss what AI can do, IP firms are overlooking the more important question of whether they are ready
Caitlin Heard, who formally joined the firm from CMS last month, says she is excited by the ‘energy’ of the London office
Ranjna Mehta-Dutt, who moved to Chadha & Chadha after 25 years at Remfry & Sagar, says the firm plans to expand its life sciences practice through targeted recruitment and dedicated teams for bigger clients
The initial contempt of court claim targeted Stobbs and the firm’s client for allegedly interfering with the administration of justice
Acquisition of platform developed by Boehmert & Boehmert lawyer set to create a combined platform for patent drafting and prosecution in Europe
Partner Rob Jacob unveils plans to offer a beginning-to-end trademark service, how to make prosecution profitable, and why IP ‘buy-in’ from the CEO stands the firm in good stead
Attorneys at Di Blasi, Parente & Associados share how the protection of trade secrets strengthens innovation by bringing together legal practice, regulatory developments, and established international references
Jin Ooi, who joins as a partner today, said he is excited to offer a ‘rounded’ IP service as the firm deepens its litigation expertise in the UK and Europe
As generics celebrate, practitioners believe innovator companies should brace for an ‘uphill battle’ when trying to prove induced infringement
Gift this article