Puma wins
with
form stripes.
Puma wins
with
form stripes.
from
Stripes and other symbols on sporting goods are often a contentious issue. Are competitors allowed to use curved stripes on sneakers – or is this reserved for Puma? The Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court has given a clear but differentiated answer.
Puma form stripes
The sporting goods manufacturer Puma is the owner of several European Union figurative marks showing the well-known curved shape stripe. These trademarks have been registered for shoes for years and millions of these shoes are sold.
Puma’s shape stripe, which has been known for decades, is one of the most influential design features on the sneaker market. However, a Spanish sports shoe manufacturer launched several shoe models with side stripes that Puma felt were too similar.
This involved the following:
From Puma’s point of view, these stripes were not only loosely reminiscent of its own trademark, but also picked up on its characteristic lines. After an unsuccessful cease and desist letter , Puma applied for a preliminary injunction. The Düsseldorf Regional Court later revoked this. Puma appealed – with success, at least in part.
OLG Düsseldorf on Puma stripes
The Higher Regional Court stated with Judgment of 25.09.2025 – Ref. 20 U 35/25 first of all, it is clear that Puma’s form stripes have a particularly stable foundation in terms of trademark law . It is true that the figurative mark inherently has “only” average distinctiveness. However, this has increased considerably due to decades of intensive use.
According to the court’s findings, Puma sold around eleven million pairs of shoes with the form stripes in Germany in 2023 alone. For the court, this was not only credible, but obvious. The form stripe is one of the world’s best-known sneaker commercial designations and is directly associated with Puma by the public.
This high profile had considerable consequences for the legal assessment.
Stripes are not just decorative
The court clearly differentiates itself from the previous opinion of the lower court. In contrast to clothing, stripes on the side of sports shoes are not primarily decoration, but a regular indication of origin.
Sneakers are regularly identified by simple symbols on the side of the shoe. According to traffic expectations, stripes on the side of the shoe are trademarks rather than mere decoration.
Risk of confusion despite deviations
For two of the challenged shoe models, the Higher Regional Court saw a relevant likelihood of confusion under trademark law. It is true that the stripes were not identical to the Puma form stripe. However, the overall impression was decisive.
The lines began at the front of the shoe, rose at a similar angle and tapered towards the back. In the opinion of the court, the existing interruptions made little difference. To the average consumer’s eye, the stripes continued to look like a uniform sign.
These similarities were sufficient precisely because of the high distinctiveness of the Puma trademark. The Senate expressly emphasized: The better known the trademark is, the smaller the deviations may be without leaving the scope of protection.
When the protection ends
The assessment of the third model was different. Here, the strip was not only interrupted, but split into two clearly separate elements. The impression of a continuous shaped strip was completely lost.
According to the court, the central feature that triggers the mental connection to the Puma trademark was thus missing. Two isolated stripe elements were simply no longer a shaped stripe. Puma’s application was therefore unsuccessful for this model.
Additional license plates do not help
The shoes also bore a word mark on the heel and on the tongue and insole. Nevertheless, this was not sufficient to rule out trademark use of the stripe.
The Senate refers to the common practice in the market of using the main mark and model name side by side. The public is used to this and continues to see the indication of origin in the stripe – the word mark is more likely to be understood as a model name.
Conclusion
The ruling once again makes it clear how far the protection of well-known trademarks extends. Stripes, such as those of Puma and Adidas, or symbols, such as the Nike swoosh, are particularly strong trademarks for sports and fashion items and therefore enjoy broad protection.
Whether the protection actually goes as far as the Higher Regional Court believes is questionable. Since the strips have interruptions, a different conclusion could have been reached here, as the Regional Court did previously.
We are happy to
advise you about
Trademark law!
