Legal updates and opinions
News / News
European Union: Adidas Ruling
By Donvay Wegierski, Director
The General court of the European Union recently upheld a 2016 ruling by the EU regulator thereby cancelling Adidas EU trade mark registration comprising three stripes depicted as:
This trade mark was filed in 2014 and the registration thereof challenged by Belgian company, Shoe Branding Europe. The General court ruled that this trade mark lacked distinctive character and is instead an ordinary figurative mark. The court found that the evidence adduced did not sufficiently show that the consumer, on seeing this three stripe mark applied to clothing, footwear and headgear in the EU would associate the mark with Adidas.
This judgement demonstrates the firm stance adopted by the EU when assessing distinctiveness. Since a trade mark grants the proprietor exclusivity to a mark in relation to the goods and services for which it is registered – in this instance clothing, footwear and headgear in class 25 – the distinctiveness requirement is absolute. The manner in which the trade mark was registered requires particular consideration being three black vertical stripes. Although the court did not find in favour of Adidas in this instance, the ruling may have no effect on the broad scope of protection that Adidas already has on its well-known three stripes registered in various forms in Europe and elsewhere.
If you would like to learn more about Intellectual Property please visit our practice area page.
Latest News
Nxele v Chairperson of the Disciplinary Hearing: Mudau NO and others, [2026] 6 BLLR 628 (LC): Clarifying the operation of section 188A(11) of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995
by Bankey Sono, Director and Sandile Mogweng, Candidate Attorney The Labour Court in Nxele v Chairperson of the Disciplinary Hearing: [...]
No grout about it: The LAC cements section 197 principles
by Bradley Workman-Davies, Director Section 197 of the Labour Relations Act has long been one of the most misunderstood and [...]
Making sense of death: A brief overview of inquest proceedings
by Dakalo Singo, Director and Head of Pro Bono By its very nature, death is tragic. The death of a [...]
Is cryptocurrency ‘capital’? Taking the Mangundhla judgment under the loop
by Deon Griessel, Director 1. Introduction Two Gauteng Division judgements have reached diametrically opposite conclusions on the question as to [...]
Agonists and APIs: High Court Injects Clarity into Compounding Debate
by Neil Kirby, Director and Head of Healthcare & Life Sciences and Slade van Rooyen, Associate The practice of compounding [...]
Minority shareholders and disposals of “controlling interests”: The limits of Section 11 of the MPRDA
by Chris Stevens, Director and Head of Mining & Resources, Kyra South, Director and Sandile Shongwe, Senior Associate Given that [...]
