Kia Motor Corporation (hereinafter referred to as Kia) tried to apply for registration of“Borrego”trademark on buses and other commodities, but was dismissed by Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (hereinafter referred to as TRAB) under National Industry and Commerce Administration of China. Kia then filed a lawsuit against TRAB. Recently, the Court made the judgment to maintain the decision of TRAB.

It is reported that the No. 6301519 application “Borrego” trademark was applied by Kia in September 2007, specified used on Class 12 commodities like passenger cars, trucks and other goods. Kia’s“Borrego”car was a new launch of SUV published in January 2008, and was sold in china from July 2008.

Since the questioned trademark was similar to the cited trademark on similar used goods, Trademark Office under the National Administration for Industry and Commerce of China rejected the Kia’s application. The cited No. 4082010 trademark“BaRui”, applied by Chongqing Zongshen Industrial Group Co., Ltd. in May 2004, used on Class 12 motorcycles, mopeds and other commodities, is currently in the period of validity. Kia refused to accept the decision by Trademark Office, then applied for a review to TRAB.

TRAB held that, the questioned trademark“Borrego”and cited trademark “BaRui” are used on similar goods such as cars and motorcycles; the Chinese characters of the two trademarks share the same character “Ba” and “Rui”, which constitute similar trademarks; it could easily lead to confusion among consumers. Accordingly, TRAB rejected the trademark registration application.

Kia then filed an administrative lawsuit to the Beijing No.1 Intermediate People’s Court. The court held that, the applied trademark is specified used on buses, mini buses and other commodities and the cited trademark is used in motorcycles and other goods, which were similar in function, consumers and constituting similar goods; the two trademarks were read in the same Chinese character. Therefore, the co-existence of the two trademarks would lead to confusion among the relevant public. Accordingly, the court made the above decision.

(by Mao Liguo)

(Source: CHINA REPORT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY)