Valeo of France is an automotive parts supplier and an industrial group specializing in the design, development, production and sales of automotive parts, systems and modules. However, this company has a trademark issue. Regarding the issue of "FALEOR" and "VALEO", which have different pronunciations but similar sounds, Valeo France and Ningbo Valeo Auto Parts Co., Ltd. launched a 7-year trademark dispute. dispute.

From this we can see that the letter combinations of "FALEOR" and "VALEO" are completely different, but the pronunciation is very similar. Who is Li Kui and who is Li Gui among these two companies? The Shanghai Intellectual Property Court finally decided the case and restored "Li Gui" to his original form. Come to Hebajie Intellectual Property Trademark Transfer Network to take a look at the development of the case:

It is reported that in 2010, Ningbo Valeo Company was established, and its business scope includes auto parts, plastic products, metal products, and hardware. Manufacturing and processing of accessories, etc., and in November of that year, we applied to the Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (hereinafter referred to as the Trademark Office) to register the "FALEOR" trademark No. 8894005 designated for use in Class 7 goods, and registered www.faleor .com website, use the integrated alternator graphics, text, logo and other information with the word "Valeo" watermark on the website.

The trademark dispute between French Valeo and Ningbo Valeo began in 2010. Valeo of France filed an objection application with the Trademark Office, requesting that the trademark not be registered. In April 2013, the Trademark Office made a ruling on this and approved the registration application for trademark No. 8894005. Valeo was dissatisfied and applied for review to the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (hereinafter referred to as the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board). In March 2014, the Trademark Review and Adjudication Review and Adjudication Review and Adjudication Review and Adjudication Review and Adjudication Review and Adjudication Review and Adjudication Review and Adjudication Review and Adjudication Review and Adjudication Review and Adjudication Review and Adjudication Review and Adjudication Review and Adjudication Review and Adjudication Review and Adjudication Review and Adjudication Review and Adjudication Board held that there was little difference in letter composition between "FALEOR" and "VALEO" and the pronunciation was the same. Their use on the same product would easily confuse consumers. The Trademark Review and Adjudication Review and Adjudication Board ruled that the opposed trademark should not be approved. register.

Ningbo Valeo Company was dissatisfied and filed a lawsuit with the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court. The Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People's Court held that the goods designated for use by the opposed trademark and the goods approved for use by the cited trademark constituted identical or similar goods, and therefore supported the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board's decision not to approve the registration. However, Valeo later discovered that Bo Valeo Company was still selling infringing products, and Valeo sued Ningbo Valeo Company to the Putuo District People's Court of Shanghai to stop infringement of its exclusive rights to the registered trademarks "Valeo" and "Valeo". This behavior resulted in the cancellation of the www.faleor.com domain name and a claim for economic losses of 1.5 million yuan.

In the final trial, regarding the issue of whether Ningbo Valeo Company infringed the exclusive right to use trademarks, the court held that although the shapes, pronunciations, sources, etc. of the logos of "FALEOR" and "Valeo" were quite different, the As far as the Chinese public is concerned, "FALEOR" and "Valeo" have no substantive meaning. There is little difference in the letter composition between the two. According to the general pronunciation habits, the names of the two are very close, which can easily cause confusion and confusion among the relevant public. Misidentification. Therefore, we support the determination of Ningbo Valeo Company’s infringement in the first-instance judgment. The Shanghai Intellectual Property Court issued a judgment, rejecting the appeal and upholding the original judgment.