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
The meaning of a hearing DE NOVO in arbitration proceedings
Section 138 of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 accords the commissioner’s discretion to determine the matter and form [...]
The provision of transport for employees working overtime beyond 18h00
Summary The performance of night work is regulated to, among others, avoid or minimise an employee’s health risks, including the [...]
Consequences of late/non-filing of employment equity reports
In terms of the EEA, designated employers are obliged to submit an Employment Equity Report (“EER”) to the Director-General of [...]
May an employer take on the right to alter a chairperson’s decision in a disciplinary hearing?
May an employer overturn the decision of a chairperson of a disciplinary hearing if it believes the chairperson’s sanction was [...]
Admission of video recordings as evidence in arbitration proceedings
In terms of section 138(1) of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (as amended) (“the LRA”) a “commissioner may conduct the [...]
Life after Sidumo: clarifying the review test
Sidumo v Rustenburg Platinum Mines Ltd & Others [2007] 12 BLLR 1097 (CC) is a landmark case in South African labour law, [...]
