Browse
Log in / Register
Share
Audi’s German headquarters is taking an independent importer to court over two electric sedans that almost nobody in Europe had heard of until recently. The cars in question are the letter-badged AUDI E5 and E7X, built by SAIC Audi for the Chinese market. As of April 26, 2026, Audi Germany has filed a lawsuit against the importer, Auto China, demanding that it stop selling both models in Europe. Auto China has already removed the ordering links from its website, though it has not issued a public response.
On the surface, this looks like a routine trademark enforcement case. Look a little deeper, though, and it starts to feel uncomfortable for Audi.
Auto China is not a backstreet operation. It is a professional Chinese electric vehicle importer with a track record in Europe, the Middle East, and the Asia-Pacific region. Its homepage reads like a showroom for China’s hottest EV brands: Zeekr’s 8-series and 9-series, Harmony Intelligent Mobility’s Zhijie and Shangjie models, Xiaomi’s SU7 and SU7 Ultra, and even newer launches from the Chinese market.
This is not smuggling. Auto China takes care of EU homologation, customs clearance, registration documents, and everything needed to put a car legally on European roads. Although Zeekr and Xiaomi may not have official European service networks, Auto China offers its own full-vehicle and battery warranty packages, works with local maintenance partners, and stocks spare parts in regional warehouses. If a specific part is not available in Germany, it ships it directly from China.
In other words, this is the same business model as a legitimate parallel-import dealer. Most customer reviews of Auto China are positive. More than one European buyer has described the E5 as a genuinely great car.
Audi’s response did not come from Ingolstadt alone. The statement was issued jointly by SAIC Audi — the company that actually makes the letter-badged models — and Audi China.
The message was careful: Audi Germany is not rejecting the letter-badged brand, and it does not think those cars lack the spirit of the four-ring badge. The lawsuit exists because European customers who buy a parallel-imported E5 or E7X cannot rely on Audi Germany’s original manufacturer warranty. If something goes wrong, they are dependent on a third-party importer’s support, and that could damage Audi’s reputation.
That is a fair argument. A third-party warranty is rarely as reassuring as a factory-backed one. And if a warranty dispute goes badly, the customer blames Audi, not the importer.
But there is another reason that Audi probably does not want to talk about: the product gap.
The AUDI E5 Sportback is not a headline model in China. It starts at around 240,000 RMB, and the top trim is roughly 320,000 RMB. Auto China, after importing and paying all duties, is selling the top trim in Germany for 59,980 euros — about 460,000 RMB.
What does that money buy in Audi’s German lineup? An entry-level, front-wheel-drive A6 Avant. That car has around 150 kW, and almost no comfort equipment. No seat ventilation, no heated seats in any meaningful sense, just a very basic luxury-car shell.
The E5 Sportback, by contrast, is a different species. It has dual-motor four-wheel drive, a combined output of 579 kW, and a huge list of comfort features as standard. It is a brutally efficient comparison: same price, completely different class of vehicle.
The E7X is even more striking. European media that tested it against the European-spec Audi Q8 came away stunned by its rear seats and the remote-control feature. The comments under those reviews are almost unanimous: “So you can build good cars, you just don’t want to sell them to your own people.”
That kind of public comparison is difficult for a premium brand. If Auto China imports ten cars today, it might import a hundred tomorrow. Before long, Audi dealerships in Germany would have to explain why a Chinese-market Audi is faster, better equipped, and cheaper than its German twin.
Yes. This is not a case of Audi trying to break the law. Under EU trademark rules — specifically Article 15 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — a brand owner’s rights are only exhausted for products it has placed on the market in the European Economic Area. The letter-badged E5 and E7X were first sold in China, not in Europe. Audi is therefore entitled to oppose their unauthorised resale inside the EEA.
That is why Audi’s legal move is compliant and carefully targeted. It is designed to protect different product strategies and pricing structures in different countries.
But a legal right is not automatically a sensible business decision.
Other global carmakers rarely end up in this position. Toyota, Tesla, and even Audi’s parent company Volkswagen do not normally face parallel importers bringing in same-brand cars that are drastically better than the local product. When a Chinese-built car is intended for export, it is usually the manufacturer doing the exporting — think Polestar 5 or SEAT Cupra.
The letter-badged Audi sits in a strange middle ground. It was designed specifically for China, but its appeal does not stay in China. In Europe, the small number of parallel-imported cars attracts huge enthusiasm. In China, the same models are ordinary players in a crowded EV market, with average sales and a lot of brand confusion between the letter-badged line and the four-ring lineup.
So Audi is left with a difficult choice. A lawsuit can stop a few hundred unofficial imports, but it cannot stop the underlying question: why can’t European customers buy a car that Audi is perfectly capable of building?
The brand says it wants to protect service quality. That is understandable. But if the E5 and E7X are truly good enough to impress European drivers, Audi should be thinking about how to offer them officially — or how to explain, without hiding behind trademark law, why its home market gets a less convincing product at the same price.
Lawsuits can protect pricing structures. They cannot protect a brand from being compared with itself.
