• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Contact form
Patentanwaltskanzlei

Patentanwaltskanzlei

  • Deutsch

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email
MENUMENU
  • Services
    • Advice On Protective IP Rights
    • Patent Application /TM Registration
    • Enforcement Of IP Rights
    • Defence Against IP Rights Enforcement
    • Costs
  • Company
    • Fields of Law
      • Patent Law
      • Utility Model Law
      • Employees‘ Inventions
      • Trademark Law
      • Design Law
      • Trademark and Product Piracy
      • Expert Opinions
    • Our Law Firm
      • Dr. Tim Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Klaus Zimmermann
      • Zhichao Ying
      • Walter Benjamin Feldheim
    • Commitment
  • Contact
    • Where To Find Us
    • Write us!
    • Request call back
  • Blog

Adidas loses in dispute for 3-stripe brand against H&M

3. February 2020

New setback for adidas and its famous 3-Stripes brand. The German sports manufacturer lost the trademark dispute about the 3-Stripes brand against H&M at the Hague Court of Appeal in the netherlands.

adidas 3-stripes-brandThis case began in the last century, since 1997 adidas and H&M have been engaged in a trademark dispute over the use of a two-stripe pattern by H&M, which in adidas’ view violates the adidas 3-stripe brand. In detail, the dispute concerned H&M’s fitness clothing from the “Work Out” series.

Among other things, this case was even heard before the ECJ in 2008 (ruling of 10 April 2008, EU: C: 2008: 217). The ECJ had already pointed out at that time that, according to general case-law, a likelihood of confusion exists in particular where the public might believe that the goods or services in question come from the same undertaking or from economically-linked undertakings.

For a long time, the case was linked to parallel proceedings in the Netherlands between Adidas and Marca Mode, C&A Netherlands and Vendex KBB, who had also launched sportswear with a two-piece brand each. Adidas entered into a settlement with these parties after the Supreme Court appealed to the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court.

Recent judgements in the adidas vs. H&M case

In recent times, the judgments have been varied. In November 2017, the District Court of The Hague (Netherlands) granted adidia’s trademark infringement claim. Following H&M’s appeal, however, the Hague Court of Appeal overturned the decision and referred to differences in the use of stripes by the two parties. Thereafter, adidas initially attempted to prohibit H&M from using two contrasting, parallel, vertical stripes, but changed this into more precise claims. Adidas demanded that H&M be prohibited from using parallel stripes of equal width.

The current ruling of the Hague Court of Appeal (Holland) relates to this adidas claim. Market research was conducted to determine whether consumers confused the H&M striped look with 2 stripes with adidas and its brand. However, this was not the case.

The Hague Court of Appeal recognized the lack of likelihood of confusion and rejected the allegation of trademark infringement. The German sports manufacturer thus lost the trademark dispute about the 3-stripe trademark against H&M before the Hague Court of Appeal for the time being, but may appeal against this decision.

EuG rejected the inverse colour representation as trademark representation

Already last year adidas suffered a defeat in the defence of its famous 3-Stripes brand. The European Court  rejected the inverse colour representation of the mark as proof of use of the mark and thus also denied distinctiveness through use.

Would you also like to protect your trademark or brand?

Our lawyers are experienced in trademark and patent law, national and international law.

 

Sources: 

Judgement Haager Court

Image:

Alexas_Photos | Pixabay | CCO License

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 

Category iconTrademark Law Tag icon3-stripe brand,  3-stripe mark,  adidas,  H&M,  Hague Court of Appeal,  judgment,  Trademark Dispute

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

More articles about: Trademark Law

All articles

Blog Menu

  • Design Law
  • Healthcare & Lifesciences
  • International Intellectual Property
  • Licenses
  • News from our law firm
  • Overall
  • Patent Law
  • Product- and Trademark piracy
  • Trademark Law

Recent Posts

  • What is the public allowed to know? 3. June 2024
  • BPatG: Patent claim of cancer drug on active substance as salt 7. March 2022
  • Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022 4. March 2022
  • CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks? 25. February 2022

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Das könnte Sie auch interessieren:

3. June 2024
What is the public allowed to know?

What is the public allowed to know?

4. March 2022
Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

25. February 2022
CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks?

CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks?

24. February 2022
EOS lip balm no 3D trademark – appeal before ECJ not admissible

EOS lip balm no 3D trademark – appeal before ECJ not admissible

21. February 2022
CFI: Pumpkin seed oil + PGI symbol

CFI: Pumpkin seed oil + PGI symbol

15. February 2022
SPOTIFY v POTIFY – a ‘pot’ app

SPOTIFY v POTIFY – a ‘pot’ app

Contact us or request a call back

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Request a call back

Footer

Contact

Hanauer Landstrasse 287
D – 60314 Frankfurt am Main
Deutschland
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 199
[email protected]

Office Hours
Moday – Friday:   08:00-18:00

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Law Firm

  • Request non-binding call back
  • Company
  • Our Law Firm
  • ISO Certificate
  • Privacy Policy
  • Data handling for clients
  • Imprint

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email

Newsletter Signup

Newsletter INT

© Meyer-Dulheuer MD Legal Patentanwälte PartG

Contact Form

 

Give us a call, send us an email or fill out the contact form.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

Rückruf INT

Please note: If we deal specifically with your individual case, this is what is known as an initial consultation. In accordance with Section 34 of the Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz, this incurs one-off costs of 190 euros plus MwSt. We will be happy to assist you in a personal consultation after our telephone call.

Kontaktformular

 

Rufen Sie uns an, schicken Sie uns eine Mail oder füllen Sie das Kontaktformular aus.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

Rückruf

Um dieses Angebot nutzen zu können, müssen Sie der Speicherung Ihrer personenbezogenen Daten zustimmen. Wir behandeln diese streng vertraulich und verwenden sie nur zur Kontaktaufnahme mit Ihnen. Mehr dazu lesen Sie in unserer Datenschutzerklärung.

Bitte beachten Sie: Wenn wir uns konkret mit Ihrem Einzelfall befassen, ist dies eine sogenannte Erstberatung. Für eine solche entstehen gemäß § 34 Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz einmalige Kosten in Höhe von 190 Euro plus MwSt. Gerne helfen wir Ihnen im Anschluss an unser Telefonat in einem persönlichen Beratungsgespräch weiter.