Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 19 June 2019

adidas AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office

EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark representing three parallel stripes — Absolute grounds for invalidity — No distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) and Article 52(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(3) and Article 59(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Form of use unable to be taken into account — Form that differs from the form under which the mark has been registered by significant variations — Inversion of the colour scheme

Case T-307/17


Top of the page Documents in the Case
Document Date Name of the parties Subject-matter Curia EUR-Lex
Judgment (OJ)
09/08/2019 adidas v EUIPO - Shoe Branding Europe (Représentation de trois bandes parallèles)
Judgment
ECLI:EU:T:2019:427
19/06/2019 adidas v EUIPO - Shoe Branding Europe (Représentation de trois bandes parallèles)
EUR-Lex text EUR-Lex bilingual text
Abstract
ECLI:EU:T:2019:427
19/06/2019 adidas v EUIPO - Shoe Branding Europe (Représentation de trois bandes parallèles)
Application (OJ)
30/06/2017 adidas v EUIPO - Shoe Branding Europe (Représentation de trois bandes parallèles)
View pdf documents
Top of the page Legal analysis of the decision or of the case

Reports of Cases

published in the electronic Reports of Cases (Court Reports - general)

Subject-matter

Information not available

Systematic classification scheme

1.
4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.11 Approximation of laws
    4.11.03 European Union trade mark
      4.11.03.01 Absolute grounds for refusal
        4.11.03.01.12 Acquisition of distinctive character through use
4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.11 Approximation of laws
    4.11.03 European Union trade mark
      4.11.03.01 Absolute grounds for refusal
        4.11.03.01.12 Acquisition of distinctive character through use
4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.11 Approximation of laws
    4.11.03 European Union trade mark
      4.11.03.01 Absolute grounds for refusal
        4.11.03.01.12 Acquisition of distinctive character through use
4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.11 Approximation of laws
    4.11.03 European Union trade mark
      4.11.03.01 Absolute grounds for refusal
        4.11.03.01.12 Acquisition of distinctive character through use
4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.11 Approximation of laws
    4.11.03 European Union trade mark
      4.11.03.01 Absolute grounds for refusal
        4.11.03.01.12 Acquisition of distinctive character through use
4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.11 Approximation of laws
    4.11.03 European Union trade mark
      4.11.03.01 Absolute grounds for refusal
        4.11.03.01.12 Acquisition of distinctive character through use


Citations of case-law or legislation

References in grounds of judgment

  • Regulation 2868/95 : paragraph 33
  • Regulation 2868/95 -A01R1P1LD : paragraph 29
  • Regulation 2868/95 -A01R3P2 : paragraph 29
  • Regulation 2868/95 -A01R3P3 : paragraph 31
  • Regulation 2868/95 -A01R3P5 : paragraph 29
  • Regulation 207/2009 : paragraphs 1, 146
  • Regulation 207/2009 -A01P2 : paragraph 142
  • Regulation 207/2009 -A04 : paragraphs 26, 85, 86
  • Regulation 207/2009 -A07P1LB : paragraphs 6, 10, 16, 17, 88
  • Regulation 207/2009 -A07P2 : paragraph 16
  • Regulation 207/2009 -A07P3 : paragraphs 8, 14, 16, 18, 49 - 52, 55 - 57, 59, 60, 62, 63, 75, 112, 149
  • Regulation 207/2009 -A08P1LB : paragraph 84
  • Regulation 207/2009 -A15P1 : paragraphs 50 - 52, 59
  • Regulation 207/2009 -A15P1L2LA : paragraphs 53 - 56, 61, 63
  • Regulation 207/2009 -A52P1LA : paragraphs 6, 17
  • Regulation 207/2009 -A52P2 : paragraphs 8, 14, 17, 18, 49 - 52, 55 - 57, 59, 60, 62, 75, 149
  • Regulation 1431/2017 : paragraphs 33, 34, 45
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -108/97 -N46 : paragraph 19
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -108/97 -N49 : paragraph 111
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -108/97 -N51 : paragraph 109
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -108/97 -N52 : paragraph 112
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -299/99 -N35 : paragraph 19
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -299/99 -N59 : paragraph 20
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -299/99 -N60 : paragraph 109
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -299/99 -N63 : paragraph 20
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -363/99 -N34 : paragraph 20
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -363/99 -N75 : paragraph 20
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -273/00 -N48 : paragraph 30
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -49/02 -N27 : paragraph 30
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -329/02 -N27 : paragraph 88
  • Court of Justice - Opinion C -353/03 -N24 : paragraph 58
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -353/03 -N31 : paragraph 111
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -25/05 -N76 : paragraph 110
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -25/05 -N77 : paragraph 110
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -234/06 -N86 : paragraph 53
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -238/06 -N65 : paragraph 81
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -304/06 -N56 : paragraph 88
  • General Court - Judgment T -270/06 -N91 : paragraph 81
  • General Court - Judgment T -137/08 -N39 : paragraph 153
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -51/10 -N77 : paragraph 83
  • General Court - Judgment T -326/10 -N56 : paragraph 34
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -553/11 -N21 : paragraph 54
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -12/12 -N33 : paragraph 58
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -12/12 -N34 : paragraph 58
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -252/12 -N29 : paragraph 54
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -421/13 -N19 : paragraphs 38, 41
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -421/13 -N27 : paragraphs 38, 41
  • Court of Justice - Order C -466/13 -N90 : paragraph 81
  • General Court - Judgment T -112/13 -N126 : paragraph 153
  • General Court - Judgment T -83/14 -N18 : paragraph 61
  • General Court - Judgment T -145/14 : paragraph 83
  • General Court - Judgment T -579/14 -N43 : paragraph 34
  • General Court - Judgment T -579/14 -N49 : paragraph 34
  • General Court - Judgment T -579/14 -N53 : paragraph 34
  • General Court - Judgment T -579/14 -N62 : paragraph 34
  • General Court - Judgment T -629/14 -N34 : paragraph 27
  • Court of Justice - Order C -170/15 -N29 : paragraph 32
  • Court of Justice - Order C -170/15 -N30 : paragraph 32
  • Court of Justice - Order C -170/15 -N32 : paragraph 32
  • General Court - Judgment T -101/15 -N71 : paragraph 30
  • General Court - Judgment T -101/15 -N79 : paragraph 31
  • General Court - Judgment T -146/15 -N27 : paragraph 61
  • General Court - Judgment T -146/15 -N33 : paragraph 72
  • General Court - Judgment T -146/15 -N52 : paragraph 72
  • General Court - Judgment T -304/16 -N23 : paragraph 18
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -84/17 -N68 : paragraph 143
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -84/17 -N76 : paragraph 144
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -84/17 -N77 : paragraph 145
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -84/17 -N80 : paragraph 146
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -84/17 -N81 : paragraph 147
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -84/17 -N82 : paragraph 148
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -84/17 -N83 : paragraph 149

Operative part

Information not available

Opinion

Information not available


Dates

Date of the lodging of the application initiating proceedings

  • 18/05/2017

Date of the Opinion

Information not available

Date of the hearing

Information not available

Date of delivery

19/06/2019


References

Publication in the Official Journal

Judgment: OJ C 288 from 26.08.2019, p.46

Application: OJ C 231 from 17.07.2017, p.48

Name of the parties

adidas v EUIPO - Shoe Branding Europe (Représentation de trois bandes parallèles)

Notes on Academic Writings

  1. Conde, Aida: The General Court says no to (one of) the Adidas three-stripe mark(s), Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice 2019 Vol.14 N°10 p.746-748 (EN)



Procedural Analysis Information

Source of the question referred for a preliminary ruling

Information not available

Subject-matter

  • Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
  • - Trade marks

Provisions of national law referred to

Information not available

Provisions of international law referred to

Information not available

Procedure and result

  • Actions for annulment : dismissal on substantive grounds

Formation of the Court

neuvième chambre élargie (Tribunal)

Judge-Rapporteur

Kowalik-Bańczyk

Advocate General

Information not available

Language(s) of the Case

  • English

Language(s) of the Opinion

    Information not available