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

Cookies Settings

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

From Japan to Southeast Asia, domestic and regional firms picked up some of the biggest prizes, while key foreign players maintained momentum
Earlier this month, Managing IP had exclusively reported that the French arm of Taylor Wessing was minded to pull out of the deal
Our latest podcast examines how Weil’s IP practice evolved, where its practitioners could (and will) go next, and which firms and markets stand to benefit from the redistribution of talent
Former Latham partner Chris Henry and transactions lawyer Liza Cotter are heading to the firm as Weil’s IP practice starts to disperse
Rival IP teams return to court for a closely watched appeal over AI and copyright, but observers hoping for answers to some of the technology’s biggest legal questions may be left disappointed
Eight years after its launch, members of the Australian patent firm’s Singapore office explain its growth strategy over the past year
Lawyers at Bowmans Kenya discuss the digital blind spots posed by the transition from physical ledgers to cloud databases and digital co-development models
The Powell Gilbert co-founder discusses the confidence required to launch a firm, building an enduring patent litigation practice and why developing the next generation has changed her measure of success
Cabinet M Oproiu’s Raluca Vasilescu explains why AI is changing what clients expect from patent attorneys, where the technology is overhyped and what the next generation will need to do differently
As clients demand more flexible fees and AI-driven efficiencies, IP firms are rethinking pricing without abandoning the value of their work
Gift this article