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

Attorney Oran Friar and trainee attorney Harry Cunliffe at Reddie & Grose, share that patent filings for clinical LLMs are surging, but success in the UK and Europe hinges on demonstrating technical innovation
Implementers can use the UK courts to seek FRAND terms for patent pool licences
The first credible UPC spinouts are growing, and they are coming from elite patent litigation teams, suggesting specialist litigators may no longer need large platforms to compete
Voyage IP has hired a veteran IP leader from Spruson & Ferguson as its head of trademarks, as well as another consultant who will boost the firm’s commercial offering
Lawyers say unwritten appearance expectations can disproportionately affect women and junior talent, making proactive guidance a growing responsibility for law firm leaders
Apple’s lawsuit against OpenAI, which features Tier 1-ranked disputes firms on both sides, reflects how trade secrets litigation is becoming a prominent competition feature
Drew & Napier’s leadership appointments show one way full-service firms can back up claims about the strategic importance of IP
Strike-out application will hear claims that the copyright aspect of an IP infringement claim brought by a gambling and sports betting group should be dropped
Amongst a sea of mergers, Lathrop GPM and HG Law have set out plans to combine, positioning themselves to compete with both IP boutiques and full-service firms
Patrícia Paias explains why she loves the science and business behind an idea and why potential rights owners must avoid the ‘file and forget’ philosophy
Gift this article