Adidas blocks Cruyff shirt

A famous trademark may oppose the use of a comparable sign for completely different products. In a trademark application is filed for an orange T-Shirt that bears number 14, which is Johan Cruyff’s (Holland’s most talented soccer player of all time). The trademark was applied for a large amount of products such as clothing, but also cups and watches. Adidas opposes this application based on her famous “three stripes” trademark, and invokes her reputation, accusing the other party of coat tail riding.

The European authorities agree with Adidas. Adidas shows (with statements and proof) that its trademark is indeed famous. The Cruyff trademark is a sporting shirt that has two stripes along its sleeves. Since Adidas’ three stripes are very famous the consumer will immediately associate the T-shirt with Adidas. Furthermore, merchandising products are usual with large sporting events and the consumer may also assume that the Cruyff products are in fact Adidas’. The fact that Johan Cruyff was the only player in 1974 who was not sponsored by Adidas and thus has two stripes on his shirt did not change the matter. Adidas emerged as the victor.

trademarks



Latest news
Rituals vs. The Body Shop: Battle of the Brands
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
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?