The automotive industry’s transition towards electrification and digitalisation has ushered in a new era not only from a technological perspective but also in terms of trade mark law and brand strategy. An increasing number of automotive manufacturers are developing parallel brand identities tailored to the electric vehicle (EV) era. One of the most compelling examples is Audi’s Chinese “AUDI” sub-brand, which illustrates how global brands seek to preserve the consumer trust associated with a well-known brand and its commercial origin while simultaneously creating a partially distinct identity to address the needs of new markets and evolving consumer expectations. The objective is clear: to establish a new identity that remains firmly connected to the original brand heritage.
The “AUDI” project, developed through the cooperation between Audi and China’s SAIC Motor, may at first glance appear to represent a radical departure from Audi’s traditional brand identity. The iconic Four Rings have disappeared from the vehicles, replaced exclusively by the “AUDI” word mark presented in a new typographical style and accompanied by a distinct visual identity.
In today’s Chinese EV market, it is increasingly evident that Western manufacturers are adapting to Chinese market trends rather than the other way around. In reality, however, this is not the launch of an entirely new brand but rather a deliberate “brand split”. Under this carefully designed brand architecture, the traditional Audi brand continues to use the familiar Four Rings logo on its conventional vehicle range, while the new “AUDI” sub-brand displayed solely in uppercase letters without the iconic logo is specifically designed for China’s digitally oriented electric vehicle consumers.
The purpose of this brand split is therefore not to replace or separate the existing brand but to reposition it for a specific market while preserving the goodwill, reputation and recognisable commercial origin associated with the Audi brand.
At first sight, abandoning Audi’s distinctive Four Rings, a well-known trade mark in their own right could appear to involve significant legal and commercial risks. Such a move might weaken the association with the established Audi brand, dilute the continuity of its reputation, and reduce the new designation’s effectiveness in performing its origin-indicating function.
From the perspective of classical trade mark law, the essential function of a trade mark is to indicate commercial origin. Ideally, the average consumer should be able to identify the commercial source of goods or services solely on the basis of the sign. Viewed through this lens, the present branding strategy could theoretically lead some consumers to perceive the new “AUDI” designation merely as a reproduction or derivative of Audi’s well-known trade mark rather than as a carefully structured extension of the same brand.
This naturally raises the question: why was such a change considered necessary? As surprising as the omission of the iconic Four Rings may seem, the decision itself reflects the profound transformation currently taking place within the automotive industry. For decades, the Four Rings have symbolised German engineering excellence, the premium positioning of the brand, and Audi’s rich corporate heritage.
The era of electric mobility, however, places increasing emphasis on different values. Software-defined vehicles, digital ecosystems, artificial intelligence and rapid technological innovation have become just as important as traditional automotive engineering.
Against this background, the Four Rings represent both an asset and a constraint. While they embody Audi’s reputation, prestige and accumulated goodwill, they also evoke associations with an earlier era of automotive manufacturing. By contrast, the new “AUDI” sub-brand seeks to project a cleaner and more contemporary identity specifically tailored to China’s electric vehicle market. The intention is not to distance itself from the established Audi brand but rather to reinterpret it. By retaining its most valuable verbal asset the AUDI name while simplifying its visual identity, the company aims to create a brand image that remains relevant and appealing to a new generation of consumers.
From a trade mark law perspective, it is particularly noteworthy that the Chinese trade marks associated with the new “AUDI” sub-brand are owned not by SAIC Motor but by Audi AG itself. According to publicly available trade mark databases, Audi AG registered a total of nine “AUDI” word marks across various classes of goods in 2024. This suggests that legal control over the new sub-brand has deliberately remained with Audi AG, fully consistent with the broader brand strategy under which market operations and product development in China are carried out in cooperation with SAIC Motor, while ownership and strategic control of the Audi brand remain firmly with the German parent company.
Audi’s communications strategy reinforces this approach in a remarkably deliberate and sophisticated manner. Throughout its official communications, the company consistently emphasises that the new “AUDI” sub-brand builds upon the technological expertise, engineering heritage and corporate foundation of the well-established Audi brand, carrying these strengths into a new market ecosystem rather than replacing them.
Audi’s new Chinese brand strategy is therefore particularly noteworthy because it successfully introduces a minimalist word-only “AUDI” sub-brand that aligns with contemporary market trends while explicitly preserving the value, reputation and heritage of the well-known Audi brand.
Even after more than twenty-five years of practising trade mark law, I continue to encounter cases that offer fresh perspectives on the relationship between well-known trade marks and the constantly evolving perceptions of consumers. Audi’s Chinese “AUDI” sub-brand is one such example. It is noteworthy not only from a trade mark law perspective but also because it demonstrates that modern brand building has evolved beyond being merely a legal or marketing exercise; it has become a complex strategic undertaking. This case illustrates that the long-term success of a brand depends on far more than a strong name or a famous logo. It requires a carefully designed, forward-looking brand strategy in which legal, commercial and communications expertise play equally important roles. For these reasons, I felt this was a case worth sharing.