Tesla Motors resolves dispute with Chinese 'trademark troll'

Tesla Motors has resolved a trademark dispute with a Chinese businessman. Tesla Motors has reached an agreement with Zhan Baosheng, who registered Tesla's name as a trademark in China back in 2006.

Ng Han Guan/AP/File
A worker cleans a Tesla Model S sedan before a event to deliver the first set of cars to customers in Beijing. Tesla Motors has resolved a trademark dispute with a Chinese businessman.

Tesla seems finally to have resolved its copyright issues in China.

Thanks to a local "trademark troll," the electric-car maker was initially forced to sell cars in China with no name.

The issue had appeared to be resolved when a Chinese court ruled in favor of Tesla, but then last month, the company was slapped with a lawsuit.

Now, Tesla says it has "completely and amicably" resolved the trademark dispute, according to a new report from Reuters.

The electric-car maker reached an unspecified agreement with Zhan Baosheng, the Guangdong-based businessman who registered the Tesla name as a trademark in China--in two languages--back in 2006.

Baosheng hoped to sell the trademarks back to Tesla, which was forced to consider selling cars under a phonetic name like Te Su Le if a deal couldn't be made.

The carmaker appeared to be winning the battle when a Chinese court decision rendered Baosheng's claims on the Tesla name invalid.

However, Baosheng appealed the decision and filed a lawsuit against Tesla, demanding the company cease operations in China, shut its showrooms, service centers, and charging stations, and pay him $3.9 million in compensation.

Tesla presumably isn't doing that, although the details of the agreement with Baosheng were not released.

Baosheng reportedly agreed to let Chinese authorities complete the process of cancelling his trademarks at no cost to Tesla. He will also transfer certain domain names--including tesla.cn and teslamotors.cn--to Tesla.

With the rights to its name secured, Tesla can focus on actually selling cars in China, which it believes will be one of its largest global markets.

The company hopes to build electric cars there within three or four years.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.