Adidas’s stripe saga

Adidas uses three parallel stripes as the distinguishing sign of its products. Characteristic is the number and the fact that the stripes are just as wide as the space between them. The design dates from 1949. To protect the goodwill of this brand, the company acts consistently against other sports brands that use stripes. The best known conflict is, we suspect, the series of lawsuits against Hennes and Mauritz that has been ongoing since 1997, over the use of the two stripes on fitness clothing.

After many court rulings, from first instance courts to Supreme Courts and even the European Court, there now seems to be a tipping point in this saga. The national Court of the Hague has come to the conclusion that the signs are not similar.

The Adidas trademark is a repeating three-stripe pattern with equal spacing. The stripes at H&M look more like a thick stripe with a line between them (so significantly smaller spacing). In addition, the repetition is missing and this is not a pattern. The similarity therefore is low. Result: no infringement.

Chances are (given the history) that Adidas will appeal the decision in cassation. However, this statement is particularly relevant. The scope of protection of a logo is limited if it consists solely of simple geometrical elements such as stripes, dots, circles or squares. (Source image: Rechtspraak.nl)

trademarks



Latest news
The Bulldog rightly claims damages from Red Bull
Trademark Escobar parfum contrary to public order
Abcor team in World Trademark Review 1000
Louis Keijzer passes BBMM exam with flying colours
Competitor registers domain name
Our Clients
Follow Abcor
claimant
defendant
claimant
defendant

IP quiz Trademarks

Puma is one of the bigger sports and lifestyle brands in the world. The core-business is the design, development and sale of (sports) shoes, (sports) clothing and accessories. In 1960, Puma registered an international trademark for a device designed in 1958: the formstrip. Since then, Puma has registered approximately 90 formstrip trademarks with validity in the Benelux or the European Union. Puma claims that this is a serial mark. Monshoe is a wholesaler of women's shoes and related products. The company designs and develops Monshoe shoes which it largely markets itself. Monshoe sells its women's shoes under the brands Shoecolate and Pearlz. The shoe Shoecolate is offered in various colour combinations. Puma claims that Monshoe infringes its well-known formstrip trademark. Monshoe contradicts this and states that the average consumer will not perceive the device of Monshoe on the sneakers as a trademark. And if the public will recognize a trademark in the decoration, it will not make the connection to Puma. According to Monshoe, the formstrip logo is not a well-known trademark within the meaning of the BVIE and the UMVo. There is no likelihood of confusion because the sign does not or hardly evoke any association with Puma among the public. In light of the above, who is right? Does this constitute decorative use or linking to a well-known trademark?