The General Court of the European Union (EUT) has dealt a blow to the dispute that Adidas has been facing for years with the Belgian company Shoe Branding Europe BVBA. The Court of Justice of the European Union dismissed Adidas` appeal against the 2016 decision of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) cancelling the registration of the mark – three equidistant parallel strips of equal width applied to the product in any direction – on the grounds that it lacked distinctiveness, acquired both intrinsically and through use. The General Court of the European Union confirms the invalidity of Adidas` EU trade mark, which consists of three parallel bands applied in any direction. Laura Montoya, Pons IP`s head of distinctive signs and domain names, insists on the fact that the TGUE considers in its judgment that “Adidas has not demonstrated that the trademark, which consists of three parallel bands of equal width spaced at the same distance, applied to the product in any direction, has a distinctive character, acquired through use. thus violates one of the fundamental conditions for the registration of a trade mark`. The lawyer also points out that the court disputes that the German company registered the trademark as a standard trademark, i.e. as a mark that would protect the three parallel and equidistant lines in different positions, dimensions, etc., depending on the product to which it is applied. “Based on our experience, the Adidas brand could not be appreciated as a standard brand because it did not meet requirements, such as the monogram pattern of the French Maison Louis Vuitton,” says Montoya. Adidas may lodge an appeal in cassation against this decision of the CJEU before the Court of Justice of the European Union within two months and ten days of notification of the decision. The lawyer, who understands that this judgment may contradict certain statements of the judgments of the same court of 2015 and 2018, which the same parties faced, points out that “in view of this new judgment, the protection granted to well-known marks with a very simple design could be limited in practice.
since small differences (changing the black and white order of lines or the arrangement of elements) could prevent infringement of earlier marks”.