"雷朋" failed in the tademark controversy

As a well-known brand in automobile heat insulation film industry, "雷朋" entered Chinese market in 1996. Recently, Beijing No.1 Intermediate People's Court ruled at first-instance that "雷彭" could be registered as a trademark except in the field of automobile heat insulation paper. The trademark war, which has lasted for many years, ended in "雷朋"'s failure.

The trademark in question, he No.4622178 trademark "雷彭", was applied for registration in April, 2005 by a natural person named Wang Cuiwei from Panyu city, Guangdong province, certified to be used on Class 17, insulating materials, etc. During the publication, Xintai Trading Company filed an objection to the application, claiming that "雷彭" constituted trademark similarity with its own trademark "雷朋".

The reference trademark, also known as the No.1104030 "雷朋" trademark, was applied for registration in August, 1996, and approved in 1997. The former applicant of the trademark was Xintai Company. In 2009, the trademark was transferred to Xiamen Zhangtai Heat-Insulating Film Company Limited ( Zhangtai Company). After trademark renewal, the trademark could be used to September, 2017, certified to be used on Class 17, automobile heat insulation paper, etc.

According to the Trademark Office under the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC), though the two trademarks constituted similarity due to the use on some similar goods, the trademark "雷彭" could be registered on parts of goods which was not similar with "雷朋" due to Xintai Company's insufficient evidence.

Dissatisfied Zhangtai Company then made an appeal to the Trademark Appeal Board (TRAB) under SAIC, which confirmed "雷朋"'s popularity in automobile heat insulation paper before the application of "雷彭". However, TRAB ruled "雷彭" could be registered on insulating materials, sealing ring, etc., considering that the goods on which "雷彭" was certified to be used was different from that of "雷朋" in function, use and target consumers.

Disgruntled Zhangtai Company then appealed to the Beijing No.1 Intermediate People's Court. 　 The court held that the goods on which the two trademarks were used did not constitute similarity though they were similar in pronunciation. Hence, the court upheld TRAB's ruling.