NIO's "Firefly" UK Trademark Rejected: UKIPO Rules Likelihood of Confusion Established

On April 16, 2026, the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) issued a ruling in a high-profile opposition case concerning the word trademark "FIREFLY," finding that the "FIREFLY" word mark applied for by NIO Nextev Europe Holding B.V., an affiliate of Chinese electric vehicle manufacturer NIO (NEXTEV), was identical or highly similar to the prior registered trademark of the opposing party, EV Transportation Services, Inc. (evTS), in respect of certain goods in Class 12 (vehicles and related parts), that a likelihood of confusion existed, and that NIO's application for registration of the "FIREFLY" word mark was partially rejected.

According to UKIPO records, evTS had applied for trademark protection for "FIREFLY" in the UK as early as March 19, 2021, with registration covering Class 12 (vehicles and related parts). In contrast, the NIO affiliate did not file its application for registration of the "FIREFLY" word mark with the UKIPO until April 17, 2023 — more than two years later.

In its ruling, the UKIPO held that the "FIREFLY" word mark applied for by NIO is identical in wording to evTS's prior registered trademark, and that the designated goods categories overlap significantly. Consequently, there is a high likelihood of confusion, constituting a ground for refusal of registration.

It is noteworthy that the UKIPO's ruling does not reject NIO's entire trademark application outright. Under the ruling, NIO's "FIREFLY" mark is refused registration for the following core goods: vehicles, electric vehicles, motor vehicles, automobiles, sports cars, vehicle chassis, steering wheels, vehicle doors, vehicle windows, rearview mirrors, vehicle braking systems, suspension systems, transmissions, engine mounts, vehicle body trim panels, and most other terms within Class 12. This means that the "FIREFLY" trademark cannot be used for the production and sale of complete automobiles.

However, NIO may still register and use the "FIREFLY" mark for certain other goods within Class 12, including: bicycles, water vehicles, air or water vehicles, stabilizer bars for bicycles, and vehicle interiors. In addition, the registration of the "FIREFLY" mark for the more than 30 other non-vehicle categories of goods and services applied for by NIO (such as Class 9, Class 35, Class 37, Class 41, Class 42, etc.) is not affected by this opposition.

Under Rule 71 of the UK Trademark Rules 2008, a party dissatisfied with an opposition decision of the UKIPO may file an appeal within 28 days from the date of the decision. However, given that the word marks in this case are identical and the application was filed later than the prior right holder's, the prospects of a successful appeal are not optimistic. This ruling is undoubtedly a significant blow to NIO's "Firefly" brand strategy in the UK. China Intellectual Property Lawyer Network will continue to follow subsequent developments.

《The Trade Marks Rules 2008, SI 2008/1797》

71. Appeal to person appointed; section 76

(1) Notice of appeal to the person appointed under section 76 shall be filed on Form TM55 which shall include the appellant’s grounds of appeal and his case in support of the appeal.

(2) Such notice shall be filed with the registrar within the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the registrar’s decision which is the subject of the appeal (“the original decision”).

(3) The registrar shall send the notice and the statement to the person appointed.

(4) Where any person other than the appellant was a party to the proceedings before the registrar in which the original decision was made (“the respondent”), the registrar shall send to the respondent a copy of the notice and the statement and the respondent may, within the period of 21 days beginning with the date on which the notice and statement was sent, file a notice responding to the notice of appeal.

(5) The respondent’s notice shall specify any grounds on which the respondent considers the original decision should be maintained where these differ from or are additional to the grounds given by the registrar in the original decision.

(6) The registrar shall send a copy of the respondent’s notice to the person appointed and a copy to the appellant.