Home
Our team
»
FAQ
»
Publications
»
IP Quiz
»
Our Services
Trademark news
The new trademark car Qoros GQ3 has a conflict with KIA QUORIS and AUDI Q3

The new trademark car Qoros GQ3 has a conflict with KIA QUORIS and AUDI Q3

It is not always easy to put your mark on the market without problems. The Chinese car company Qoros Automotive can endorse this phrase since they brought their new car called QOROS to the European market. First Qoros has a problem with Kia Motors Corporation because Kia introduced their new car model under the name QUORIS. This trademark is very similar to the trademark QOROS. Secondly AUDI filed legal actions the mark GQ3 of the Chinese company Qoros. Audi is namely the  proprietor of the mark Q3. How to deal with trademark attacks and defences?

The Chinese car company QOROS is located in Changshu city in China. Qoros will show the new models: GQ3, Estate and Cross Hybrid at the fair in Geneva (7 - 17 March) this year. The company has the intention to launch their sedan model GQ3 the first second half of 2013 on the Chinese market and afterwards on the European market. Qoros has the ambition to put a new model on the market every six months.

It seems that the car company Kia Motor Corporation has also a preference for a "Qoros"-like name because they named their international K9 version QUORIS. Kia filed the trademark in several European trademark registers in the period July-November 2012. Qoros Automotive started an opposition procedure against the brand QUORIS based on their earlier trademark registration QOROS. Meanwhile, Kia continues to advertise their new sedan version under the trademark QUORIS. Qoros filed legal actions before Court in order to prohibit the use of the mark QUORIS. The chance of success that the car company Qoros will win this case is high. Since it concerns a trademark case Qoros can ask a condemnation of all costs.

The other conflict Qoros encountered is with Audi who is the owner of the trademark Q3. Qoros applied for a trademark registration of the mark GQ3 for their new sedan in the European Union in February 2012. The trademark GQ3 mature into registration without any problems in July 2012. Audi will only get notice of the mark after the registration. They went to court to enforce the use of the combination Q3 for the sedan model by Qoros. Audi win the case but if Audi put their mark Q3 in a watching service or should paid attention to their watching notices they could file an opposition against the CTM mark GQ3 of Qoros. Audi has now only the possibility to file a cancellation action against the mark GQ3 in European trade mark register. Until now they have not took such an action. Qoros did not take any risk as they named their sedan model the "3 Sedan". The name is less inspiring. Hopefully, the appearance of the car will impress more.

What kind of tips will we provide this new ambitious car company when it comes to launching new trademarks. When creating new words or combined letter/number combinations, etc, it is advisable conducting preliminary trademark searches. The outcome of the searches will reveal if potential problems are to be expected. In addition to the name creation it is also advisable to have backup trademarks. When a trademark (for whatever reason) cannot be used there are other marks on the shelve that are ready to be picked. In this way the loss of time will be reduced when a company has to switch to another trademark name. And last but not least if a trademark is applied for registration, do not forget to put the trademark in a watching services. In this way, similar or identical marks will be signalized so that appropriate action can be taken without delay.

trademark-registration

Trademark infringement, trademark issues and oppositions
»


Latest news
Abcor acquires Anchor Intellectual Property client portfolio
Christmas with M&S and Aldi
There is Only One NIELSON
False Hope for Descriptive Marks
Social media and the Olympics
Our Clients
ABCHronicle
Abcors ABChronicle no 53
Read this issue online »
Subscribe to newsletter »
Follow Abcor
IP Quiz
claimant
defendant
claimant
defendant

IP Knowledge Quiz Designs

The plaintiff specializes in online sales of children's bicycles. In safeguarding its rights, the company has registered the design of these bicycles under Community Design. Through a multiple design registration, the company secures the rights for 10 new versions of its children's bicycles simultaneously under Community Design. Subsequently, when the defendant introduces a similar bicycle, legal proceedings ensue. Among the various claims, the plaintiff alleges infringement of its design rights, which in turn is contested by the defendant. A design must possess novelty and individual character. The defendant states that the design lacks novelty, as elements of this design are already present in various existing bicycles. Essentially, the defendant's bicycles reproduce these elements, resulting in a lack of individual character. According to the defendant, the community designs are thus invalid. Even If the plaintiff's designs should be valid, the defendant argues that its bicycle deviates sufficiently. The defendant argues that the plaintiff has sought protection for more or less similar designs in the multiple design registration. Apparently, the plaintiff believes that these designs differ enough to create a different overall impression. The defendant's bicycles deviate just as much, thus creating a different overall impression (the so-called doctrine of equivalents argument). The question arises: are the plaintiff's bicycles valid designs despite comprising known aspects from various bicycles, or does the defendant's design exhibit sufficient deviation, thereby enabling the invocation of the doctrine of equivalents concerning the multiple design registration? The court determines that designers of children's bicycles enjoy considerable freedom in their designs. Consequently, if another bicycle lacks significant distinctions, it will quickly evoke a similar overall impression for the informed user, thereby lacking individual character. The comparison is drawn between the new design (the AMIGO bicycles from T.O.M.) and an older existing design (bicycle). To prove that a design is not new, you cannot, as Prijskiller (the defendant) asserts, mosaic together various elements. Therefore, as a defendant, you cannot argue that a design is not new because its characteristics are present in various different products (see also the judgment Karen Millen). If, as a designer, you combine different aspects from multiple designs for the first time into a new product, then this is simply a new and valid design. This is the case with the AMIGO bicycle. The design is upheld as valid. The AMIGO Magic bicycle features a unique tubular frame, rendering it novel. The bicycle is further distinguished by the name MAGIC, the chain guard design, and accessories such as a basket, handlebar streamers, and doll seat. Prijskiller contends that its frame shape differs (being thicker) and that the drawings are positioned differently. Additionally, Prijskiller highlights the distinct color scheme; however, TOM has registered the designs in line drawings, thus disregarding this element in the evaluation. Nevertheless, several similarities are apparent. Both bicycles exhibit an almost identical pattern of butterflies and flowers, positioned nearly identically on the frame. Furthermore, the name MAGIC is depicted in the same font and placement on the chain guard. Consequently, this bicycle fails to evoke a different overall impression for the informed user. The designer's extensive creative freedom in designing children's bicycles means that the differences highlighted by Prijskiller are minor and inconspicuous. Prijskiller's invocation of the doctrine of equivalents is likewise dismissed. The court opines that this case pertains to models concurrently deposited by T.O.M. This circumstance precludes the invocation of the "doctrine of equivalents" because, in compliance with the regulations regarding novelty, individual character, and the grace period, the various models cannot diminish each other's novelty or individual character, nor their scope of protection. In essence, in simultaneous (multiple) deposits, the "doctrine of equivalents" holds little significance. Consequently, these 2Cycle Magic bicycles fail to impart a different overall impression for the informed user. The designer's extensive freedom in designing children's bicycles and the minor differences highlighted by Prijskiller render the infringement claim upheld.
Play the quiz
»