Chrysler Group LLC, also known as FCA US LLC（hereinafter referred to as Chrysler） recently loses a seven-year trademark dispute in China. In a second-instance ruling, Beijing Higher People's Court denied Chrysler's request to revoke the trademark Opar filed by the Beijing Fortune International Trading Company（hereinafter referred to as Beijing Fortune Company） on class 12 "products of automobile accessories", sustaining the decision made by Trademark Review and Adjudication Board （TRAB） under the State Administration for Industry and Commerce （SAIC）， closing a seven-year trademark dispute.
Dating back to November 2009, Beijing Fortune Company filed the No. 7846289 Opar trademark application on products of vehicle brake pad, and others on Class 12. The Trademark Office （TMO） under SAIC approved after examination and released preliminary approval notification on October 2010.
Chrysler then challenged this trademark in January 2011 on grounds of similarity with their No. 647625 registered trademark MOPAR, which was certified on Class 12 "products of automobile drive motor". Also, Chrysler held that the trademark in dispute was similar with their No. 1977481 registered trademark MOPAR GENUINE PARTS.
After examination, TMO approved Beijing Fortune Company's applications in September 2012. Chrysler then filed an application to the TRAB for reexamination. In March 2014, TRAB made a reexamination decision and approved Beijing Fortune Company's applications. Disgruntled Chrysler brought TRAB to the court.
However, the Beijing No.1 Intermediate People's Court ruled against Chrysler's request in the first-instance decision. Chrysler then appealed to the Beijing Higher People's Court on grounds that the trademark in dispute was similar with their two registered trademarks mentioned above. Chrysler held that their two trademarks have been used for many years and have owned certain social influence, the trademark in dispute copied these two marks with a malicious purpose and this would cause confusion among consumers and would disturb the order of the market.
The Beijing Higher People's Court held that the trademark in dispute had a certain difference with the Chrysler's No. 647625 registered trademark MOPAR in pronunciation, character composition and overall look. Meanwhile, the trademark was apparently different from the No. 1977481 trademark MOPAR GENUINE PARTS in character composition. As a result, the trademark in dispute was not similar with Chrysler's trademarks and it would not cause confusion among consumers and harmful effect.
Based on the grounds mentioned above, the Beijing Higher People's sustained the Beijing No.1 Intermediate People's Court's decision.（by Wang Guohao）
(Translator Jiang Xu Editor Yan Ru)
（All contents of this newspaper may not be reproduced or used without express permission）