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
National minimum wage increases for 2022
Adjusted national minimum wage Following a mandatory annual review process, the Minister of Employment and Labour announced increases to the [...]
Earnings threshold increase for 2022
Annual earnings threshold increase for 2022 The Basic Conditions of Employment Act 75 of 1997 ("BCEA") empowers the Minister of [...]
Is a report prepared in terms of S 165(4) of the Companies Act privileged?
by Jones Antunes Director, Danielle Hertz, Associate, and Marisha Krishna, Candidate Attorney This aforesaid is an issue that recently enjoyed [...]
Can’t make head or tail of POPIA? Lessons from Sheburi V Rail Safety Regulator
The Protection of Personal Information Act 4 of 2013 The Protection of Personal Information Act 4 of 2013 ("POPIA") came [...]
There’s a hazardous biological agent in your workplace
The SARS CoV2 virus ("virus") that causes COVID-19 has been classified as a hazardous biological agent ("HBA"). The virus was [...]
Paint-by-numbers: Competition law litigation against Google and Meta
Online Intermediation Platforms Market Inquiry Is it with bated breath that one should await the outcome of the Online Intermediation [...]
