The IPKat thanks Gino van Roeyen of Netherlands firm Banning for tipping him off about another adidas two stripe/three stripe case.
As no doubt all the IPKat’s readers know, adidas owns the three-stipes trade mark in the Netherlands. H&M used two stripes on its clothing in 1996. adidas’ response was to bring infringement action under (in Directive terms) Arts 5(1)(b) and 5(2) which ended up in the 's-Hertogenbosch Court of Appeal. However, adidas failed on both claims.
Regarding confusion-based infringement, the visual difference between three and two stripes would stand out to consumers and prevent them from being confused.
Regarding dilution-style infringement, the court followed the ECJ’s decision in Adidas v Fitnessworld, finding that under the relevant provision, the degree of similarity between a mark with a reputation and a conflicting sign must be such that the relevant section of the public establishes a link between the sign and the mark. Here the evidence produced by adidas did not establish this since it examined the position at present, rather than proving that consumers made a link between the two sets of stripes in 1996. However, the court acknowledged that the scope of protection of a trade mark is not static and can be affected by changes in circumstances.
The IPKat models the latest in adidas knock-off gear
The IPKat notes that the Dutch court seems to be taking a different approach to similarity of marks under Arts 5(1)(b) and 5(2) respectively, otherwise the failure of the Art.5(1)(b) would have killed off the Art.5(2) claim. This has got to be the right approach following Adidas v Fitnessworld.
More things to make adidas angry here, here, here and here
ARE THERE ANY ADIDAS STRIPE PUNS LEFT?
![ARE THERE ANY ADIDAS STRIPE PUNS LEFT?]()
Reviewed by Anonymous
on
Friday, May 27, 2005
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] EUIPO Second Board of Appeal refers case to Grand Board of Appeal following earlier refusal to register a photograph of a man’s head/face as an EU trade mark](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUj9v-k3DYaSVMR4lsmKDLHVB5nIoINuvZNbH2TQCelrfaAE9qmGSAQs-plzQ7HnZ7Svk_gRdrIODp0Nat5vpWajduit3xkArNhK76AHhX770RIJ62thfCVI5fnvcXU-5zH4NkUSfPY9FjRMFiK7OKJ7m7YSo2FzhyPSoA8ZWCsxaOXb0bBCoPQA/s72-c/Picture%201.png)
![[Guest post] Benelux Office rules on opposition proceedings prepared by ChatGPT](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi29VY0rNNP1Hqyz8RgB47r4q7fhqQfYHxsEbX_RKmT4KU5Y_vg7vB6dsAW91CidjMfJ38klTvD4mMtZb3QmwFPAHaGF88BPttWSbfYvo7UUg7MpFRTNtEjThmG0QaX2qZFFHSnN71i3YQZSBFC0SL7PgkAlme-XH8cSNWRFbOAOuLr_LMOGcImLQ/s72-c/Screenshot%202024-12-04%20at%2020.45.58.png)
Posts
No comments:
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html