tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post1326962798824225202..comments2024-03-28T16:45:51.051+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Of stripes, positions, and shoes: CJEU's decision in Adidas three-stripe caseVerónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-77478230271867886192016-03-02T18:02:17.808+00:002016-03-02T18:02:17.808+00:00The two shoes might just be confusing if one of th...The two shoes might just be confusing if one of them was not Adidas. But anyone who does not know that three stripes = Adidas is on a different planet (Reebok?)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-77494550256579333532016-03-02T15:11:52.714+00:002016-03-02T15:11:52.714+00:00This decision is so divorced from commercial and p...This decision is so divorced from commercial and practical reality as to be entirely ridiculous. The CJEU may as well just provide Adidas with a monopoly on any and all items of striped clothing or footwear. Does anybody seriously believe that the relevant consumer will be confused between the two shoes? If we are, we must surely accept that a consumer who is confused by two (rather than three) stripes on a shoe when those stripes are both in a different position and in a different orientation would be equally likely to be confused by one stripe or seventy-two stripes regardless of positioning or orientation, after all they will probably just know that Adidas products are striped. That means anybody making any striped shoe of any type or appearance now infringes Adidas's registration for the reason that we wouldn't want this extremely moronic consumer to ever be put at any risk of being slightly confused.<br /><br />Decisions like this make me despair that the trade mark system is being run purely for the benefit of large businesses to the detriment of SMEs and consumers everywhere. There is no way in which Adidas having a monopoly on striped shoes can be of any benefit to anybody other than Adidas... even the moronic consumer is being deprived of the chance to learn that different brands produce different products that look different.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-75680365275526630122016-03-02T14:52:43.935+00:002016-03-02T14:52:43.935+00:00The CJEU's ruling reminds me of the Passing of...The CJEU's ruling reminds me of the Passing off decision of the Irish Supreme Court in Adidas Sportschuhfabriken Adi Dassler K.G v Charles O'Neill [1983] F.S.R 76 where O'Higgins C.J quoted with approval a passage from Kerly:<br /><br />"There can hardly be passing-off by get up alone (in the usual sense of substitution of one make of a product for another) unless the resemblance between the goods is extremely close, so close that it can hardly occur except by deliberate imitation; and even that may not be enough".<br /><br />Of course the CJEU did not have to address Passing off when issuing its ruling. Had this just been a case of Passing off, I wonder how successful Adidas would have been. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04204384477181635254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-59671482108823777542016-03-02T14:13:04.563+00:002016-03-02T14:13:04.563+00:00Anonymous@12:26 The teenager may not be fooled, bu...Anonymous@12:26 The teenager may not be fooled, but many well-meaning older relatives buying those trainers as a gift may well be. I have quite a few sad memories from my younger years of receiving obvious knockoffs of very inferior quality (but not necessarily much cheaper price) from easily misled relatives. Indeed, a walk through certain types of stores will reveal you that there is a thriving industry that specialises in the "clueless granny" market, from toys through faux-Disney DVDs to clothing.Glad to be out of the madhousenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-4453615424980339362016-03-02T12:26:20.428+00:002016-03-02T12:26:20.428+00:00Give any teenager a pair of trainers with two stri...Give any teenager a pair of trainers with two stripes facing the "wrong" way and try to get them to accept they are Adidas shoes and they will probably just laugh. So in my humble opinion they go nowhere near wrongly indicating Adidas as the source of the shoes, which I was always taught was the main point of TMs? Possibly gives similar overall design impression though maybe if strip out question of identifying the source of the goods? <br />Just my opinion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com