Why Adidas Lost the Three-Line Logo in the European Union

German sports giant Adidas recently faced a major loss after the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) claimed that the Adidas logo with three parallel white lines on a black background did not actually qualify for protection.

This outcome is the result of a dispute between Adidas and the Belgian footwear company Shoe Branding Europe BVBA, which filed a claim that this Adidas trademark is invalid.

According to a lawsuit from BVBA, the Adidas logo – consisting of three vertical white lines on a black background that refers to “clothing and footwear” – lacks the distinctiveness that is necessary for the legal protection of brands.

In the process, Adidas was defeated before the EUIPO Appellate Board, which took the view that the three-line Adidas trademark could not survive because it was “decoration only”.

The Adidas logo does not have any distinction, but it does not have “secondary meaning”

According to EUIPO, this logo has no so-called “Secondary meaning” (as opposed to the Apple trademark, for example) or “acquired distinctiveness” (In some cases, a mark that does not have a distinctive character in itself can be acquired by using it for a long period of time).

We invite you to read our blog post “How Apple Got the Lost Battle” which is a revolutionary example of the so-called “Secondary meaning”.

The Adidas case is different from the Apple case

As a result, the Adidas logo will be removed from the EU trademark register with retroactive effect.

Adidas presented numerous pieces of evidence during the course of the surveys conducted, which allegedly determined that consumers directly linked the three white lines on clothing to the Adidas brand, the Board of Appeal did not take this into account and upheld the first instance decision.

Our law

According to our Law on Trademarks, a trademark protects a sign that can be represented graphically, provided that it is eligible to differentiate in the traffic of goods, that is, the services of one individual or legal entity from the goods, or services of another indivudal or legal entity.

A sign may consist of words, slogans, letters, numbers, pictures, drawings, color arrangements, three-dimensional shapes, combinations of those signs, as well as musical phrases shown in a notepad and the like.

A trademark which cannot be distinguished by its overall appearance is not suitable for distinguishing goods or services in traffic.

Conclusion

The question arises as to whether the controversial Adidas mark would survive if it contained some striking elements besides the three lines?

Also, while in practice it is considered sufficient to protect the mark in black and white, following this EUIPO Decision it may be safer to protect the mark in any color in which the owner wishes to use its mark.

In any case, this EUIPO Decision set high barriers to future trademark applications, but also a risk for those companies that have already protected their trademarks (as there is a risk that their trademarks may be invalidated).

For a particular mark to be trademarked, it is necessary to be distinctive, which means that it is to be understood by consumers as a sign of differentiation in traffic.

The sign “which in its overall appearance is not suitable for distinguishing goods or services” shall not be construed as distinguishing by consumers.

Therefore, unless you pay special attention to the name, logo, slogan, or visual elements of your product or service before launching it, and subsequently, you will not be entitled to prohibit other market participants from using these features. .

In other words, competitors will be able to copy you without any detrimental consequences, and those for you and your business may be immeasurable.