IP Telegram: Puma’s Community design invalidated
Our new IP Telegram concerns the EU General Court’s decision on Community design belonging to a famous shoe company.
Recently, the General Court dismissed the action of Puma whose design was previously invalidated by the EUIPO. What makes this case more interesting and worth examining is the fact that one of the world’s most popular singers is involved.
Explore the full IP Telegram to find out more about the arguments of the parties and Court’s rulings on i.a. the grace period.W naszym najnowszym IP Telegramie omawiamy niedawne postanowienie Izby Odwoławczej EUIPO dotyczące podjętej przez firmę Prada próby zarejestrowania jej ikonicznego wzoru trójkątów.
On 6 March 2024 the General Court dismissed the action of the Puma SE for the annulment of the decision of the Invalidity Division of the EUIPO on the basis of which PUMA’s design RCD 003320555-0002 was declared invalided (T-647/22).
EUIPO declared PUMA’s design invalid due to lack of individual character. Puma immediately appealed against the decision and alleged the inadmissibility of the application for a declaration of invalidity and the breach of Article 7(1) of Regulation 6/2002.
Firstly, the EUIPO found irrelevant Puma’s argument that the application was inadmissible because of the breach of a contractual obligation by Handelsmaatschappij and its abusive character. The Court justified the rejection on the grounds that the proceedings are about resolving the individual character of the design, the assessment of which is objective.
Secondly, the General Court assessed the sufficiency of the given evidence (e.g. Rihanna’s posts on Instagram), the lack of individual character and the disclosure of the design prior to the grace period.
The Court stated that it is possible to identify the characteristics of Puma’s registered design while looking at photos posted on Rihanna’s Instagram and stressed that because of her global popularity followers would certainly pay attention to her outfits including shoes.
The Court also found that Puma did not prove that those posts „could not have become sufficiently known in the ordinary course of business to the industry specialist communities operating in the Community” (Article 7(1) of Regulation 6/2002).
Moreover, Rihanna posted the above-mentioned photos in December 2014 and the contested design was registered in 2016 so that means that Puma SE did not fulfil the conditions regarding the 12 months long grace period.
The full text of the Court’s decision is available here:
See more:
Polish Patent Office confirms broad monopoly of a word trademark (decision of the Polish Patent Office of 15 April 2025 in case Sp.180.2023)
On the 31st of July 2014, a Polish company Browary Regionalne Jakubiak sp. z o.o. filed an application with the Polish Patent Office for a device trademark including word SMOK [EN dragon] for goods in class 32, i.e. beer, non-alcoholic beer. (R.275353, registered on...
New stage of design protection in the EU
On the 23rd of October 2024, the European Parliament and the Council adopted Regulation 2024/2822 amending Regulation 6/2002, which introduces a number of changes to the EU design protection system. On the 18th of November 2024, Directive (EU) 2024/2823 of the...
CJEU on a trademark that may deceive the public as to the geographical origin (T-442/23)
In accordance with Article 1291(1)(12) of the Industrial Property Law and Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation 2017/1001, so-called deceptive signs, i.e. those that may confuse customers as to the nature, quality, or geographical origin of the goods, cannot be...