(Original title: "Tesla" trademark Tesla is supported) Beijing Morning Post (Reporter He Xin) Huarui Kaisheng Company applied for the registration of the "Tesla" trademark (hereinafter referred to as the "Vic") on September 12, 2012. The trademark was announced on January 13, 2014, and was subsequently approved. Tesla Company believes that the trademark is registered in bad faith and requires the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (hereinafter referred to as the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board) to be revoked but it has been rejected. Tesla Company sued the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board to the court and demanded that the ruling be revoked. The Justice and Production Court ruling recently supported Tesla's claim. Huarui Kaisheng Company applied for the registration of "Tesla" trademark on September 12, 2012. The trademark was first announced on January 13, 2014. After approval, it was approved for use in Class 9 optical instruments and instruments, batteries for vehicles. , ignition battery, high voltage battery, battery charger and other commodities. On April 15, 2015, Tesla’s trademark and the “TESLA†trademark of its earlier application and the “TESLA and Map†trademark of 8008885 constitute the same or similar trademarks used in the same or similar products. The registration of the trademark damages the Tesla’s prior company’s right to petition for trademark registration. It is an unfair means to pre-register Tesla’s already used and influential trademarks and is malicious in imitating and copying. Sela company enjoys a high reputation for trademark reasons, and applies to the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board for trademark infringement for invalidation. The Trademark Review and Adjudication Board rejected the application for invalidation on the ground that none of Tesla’s claims was established. Tesla disagreed with the ruling and filed a lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court on the ground that the registration of the disputed trademark violated the relevant provisions of the pre-amendment trademark law. After trial, the Beijing Intellectual Property Rights Court held that all parties had no objection to the disputed trademark and Tesla's trademark constituting similar trademarks. In fact, the disputed trademark and Tesla's trademark's first and second letters are identical in composition, with only minor differences in the capitalization or slight distortion of the letters, so it can be assumed that they constitute the same or substantially the same trademark. In this case, batteries and electric vehicles are often sold together as an important accessory for electric vehicles. Therefore, if the disputed trademark and Tesla’s trademark are of a high degree of similarity, it is easy for the relevant public to believe that there is a specific link between them. The source of goods is confused and misidentified. Based on this, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court ruled to revoke the ruling made by the Defendant Trademark Accreditation Committee and ordered him to make a new ruling.