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
Special voluntary disclosure and exchange control relief
By: The Werksmans Tax Team INTRODUCTION Following the announcement of the Special Voluntary Disclosure Programme (SVDP) in [...]
Is the alleged transfer of an insolvent business indeed a transfer as a going concern
Mokhele & Others v Schmidt & Others (JS 564/11) 19 May 2016 ISSUE Whether the alleged transfer of an [...]
Can a strike be rendered unlawful as a result of unlawful acts including acts of violence?
National Union of Food Beverage Wine Spirits and Allied Workers (NUFBWSAW) and others v Universal Product Network (Pty) Ltd In [...]
Is a collective agreement valid and binding, despite a dispute as to the authority of those purporting to conclude the agreement?
South African Airways (Soc) Ltd & another v National Transport Movement & others (Case no: J1872/2015, 12 May 2016) [...]
The meaning of the term ‘pay back’ in a settlement agreement
Genrec Engineering (Pty) Ltd v Metal and Engineering Industries Bargaining Council and Others [2016] ZALCJHB 213 (17 June 2016) ISSUE [...]
The impact of Mitchell judgement on purchases of immovable property from an insolvent estate
In a recent judgement, of City Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality v PJ Mitchell (38/2015) (2015) ZASCA, the Supreme Court of Appeal ruled that [...]
