In 2000, Renault's brought their featured brand, the Scenic, to the Chinese market and gained popularity among Chinese customers. Eleven years later, in 2011, Renault introduced the New Scenic and Grand Scenic to the Chinese customers. Again, they gained positive market response. However, Renault's application for register Scenic as a trademark in 2003, on products of cars, mini-sized motor vehicles, was denied by the Trademark Office(TMO) under the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC). Disgruntled Renault brought the case to the court and was rejected by Beijing Higher People's Court.

Renault's trademark dispute

In June 20003, Renault applied for register Scenic as a trademark, certified to be used on class 12, products of automobiles, motorcycles.　

Beijing Foton Global challenged Renault's application on ground that they have filed for and been registered the trademark of Foton Scenic, Scenic Surf and Scenic Express on the same Class.

In August 2010, TMO ruled in favor of Foton, rejecting Renault's application for Scenic as trademark on products of motor vehicles for land, air, water run or rail use, automobiles, cyclecar, motors for land vehicles and approving filings on motorcycles. Disgruntled Renault lodged an opposition against TMO's decision under the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (TRAB) under SAIC. 

TRAB held that the two marks were filed on the same Class and were both ordinary characters without special meaning and specific features, and similarity has been constituted. Meanwhile, Renault's evidences failed to prove their trademark has gained popularity earlier than Foton's filings. Renault's filings then have been rejected.

Renault then brought the case to Beijing No.1 Intermediate People's Court.

Fonton prevails

At the first instance, the court held that Foton's three trademarks have consisted of Scenic character, which has been filed by Renault as a trademark on the same Class, the trademarks in question would cause confusions among the consumers, the trademarks are similar marks used in similar products. Renault's evidences failed to prove their Scenic trademark by them have gained great polarity after long-term use in market and be distinctive from Foton's three marks. The decision by TRAB was upheld.

Renault brought the case to the Beijing Higher People's Court. Renault alleged that their marks are used on products of commercial vehicles and Foton's are used on passenger cars, the marks are distinctive in functions, merchandising locations, target customers, no similarity is constituted. Meanwhile, the trademark in question has been used for a long time in Chinese market and has fostered a market, the marks should coexist in the market.

The court held that Foton's three marks have consisted of Scenic, and Surf and Express have special meanings respectively, the public will be confused by these marks. In consideration of two companies' filings on the same Class, so similarity has been constituted and Renault's filings are rejected.