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 2025

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

Lawyers at Lavoix provide an overview of the UPC’s approach to inventive step and whether the forum is promoting its own approach rather than following the EPO
Andrew Blattman, who helped IPH gain significant ground in Asia and Canada, will leave in the second half of 2026
The court ordering a complainant to rank its arguments in order of potential success and a win for Edwards Lifesciences were among the top developments in recent weeks
Frederick Lee has rejoined Boies Schiller Flexner, bolstering the firm’s capabilities across AI, media, and entertainment
Nirav Desai and Sasha S Rao at Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox explore how companies’ efforts to manage tariffs by altering corporate structures can undermine their ability to assert their patents and recover damages
Monika Żuraw, founder of Żuraw & Partners, discusses why IP should be part of the foundation of a business, and taking on projects that others walk away from
Lawyers say attention will turn to the UK government’s AI consultation after judgment fails to match pre-trial hype
Susan Keston and Rachel Fetches at HGF explain why the CoA’s decision to grant the UPC’s first permanent injunction demonstrates the court’s readiness to diverge from national court judgments
IP, M&A, life sciences and competition partners advised on deal that brings together brands such as ‘Huggies’ and ‘Kleenex’ with ‘Band-Aid’ and ‘Tylenol’
Stability AI, represented by Bird & Bird, is not liable for secondary copyright infringement, though Fieldfisher client Getty succeeds in some trademark claims
Gift this article