Trademark registration and visual similarity: why Puma lost the battle against a Chinese competitor

In a ruling dated January 21, 2026 (T-43/25), the General Court of the European Union ruled that a Chinese clothing manufacturer's requested logo does not infringe on Puma's well-known figurative trademarks. The gist of the decision confirms a strict trademark principle: when assessing likelihood of confusion, signs should be compared as registered, and not based on how they might hypothetically (for example, upside down or rotated) be used on a product.

The facts and context

The dispute arose when the Chinese company Ningbo Gongfang Commercial Management Co. Ltd. filed an application for a European figurative mark. It concerns a logo consisting of a curved stripe and an irregular inverted triangle placed in a black rectangle. Registration was requested for garments in Class 25, including jackets, pants and shoes.

Puma SE, the well-known German sports manufacturer, filed an opposition to this application. Puma relied on three earlier European figurative marks of its well-known ‘Formstripe’ (the wavy stripe characteristic of Puma shoes) . Puma argued that there was a likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001.

After the EUIPO (European Union Intellectual Property Office) rejected the opposition, Puma went to the General Court of the European Union to still prove its case .

The decision of the General Court

The General Court upheld the decision of the EUIPO and rejected Puma's claim in its entirety. Although it was not disputed that the goods (clothing and shoes) were identical, the case foundered on the comparison of the characters themselves.

The Court reached the following findings:

• Visual differences: The disputed sign features a distinctly black rectangular background and an angular, segmented structure that contrasts with the flowing lines of Puma's marks. Where the Puma stripes show a narrowing motion, the disputed sign shows a widening motion.
• No dominance: The signs are purely figurative and have no pronounced dominant element. They have only average distinctiveness.
• No conceptual or phonetic comparison: Because they are abstract geometric figures without word elements, a phonetic comparison is impossible. Also conceptually, the characters do not convey specific meaning, so again no similarity can be established.

Because the signs are not similar as a whole, one of the cumulative conditions for likelihood of confusion was not met. Thus, the opposition was declared unfounded.

Legal analysis and interpretation

For legal practice, this ruling is relevant because of the strict application of the identity principle when comparing signs. Indeed, Puma tried to argue that Ningbo's mark on athletic shoes would often be perceived twisted or ‘upside down,’ so it would indeed resemble the Puma stripe.

The Court firmly rejects this reasoning based on settled case law:

1. Comparison “as registered” The comparison between trademarks should be based on the form and orientation in which they are registered or applied for. The actual or potential use in a different form (such as a rotation on a sneaker) is irrelevant to the stage of character comparison.

2. Distinction from infringement proceedings Puma referred to the ruling O2 Holdings, in which the Court of Justice stated that one must take into account all the circumstances in which a trademark may be used . However, the Court clarifies that this principle applies to infringement proceedings (where actual use in the market is tested) and cannot simply be transposed to opposition proceedings, where the focus is on the registration itself. Using a trademark “upside down” is not an inherent feature of registration.

3. No “family of brands” argument without similarity Puma also invoked the existence of a “family of brands” with stripes. However, the Court held that this argument cannot succeed if the signs are not visually similar. Without basic similarity between the signs, there is no starting point for confusion or association, regardless of the reputation of the earlier marks.

What this specifically means

This ruling is important for trademark owners and designers in the fashion industry:

• For trademark owners: You cannot rely on a “broad” protection of simple geometric shapes when opposing more complex logos. Protection is strictly limited to the registered graphic representation. Do you want protection against an inverted logo? Then you should consider registering variations of your mark (in different orientations) as well.
• For competitors/designers: Adding a clear frame (such as the black rectangle in this case) or changing the geometric ‘flow’ (angular vs. flowing) may be enough to distance oneself from a familiar but simple visual mark.
• Strategic advice: In opposition proceedings (at the EUIPO), one looks at the trademark register. Arguments about how a consumer perceives a logo on a moving base are usually not accepted at this stage.

FAQ: Frequently Asked Questions

Can I stop a competitor using a similar logo even if the products are identical?
Not necessary. In trademark law, a number of conditions must be cumulatively fulfilled. If the products are identical (e.g., shoes), but the signs themselves are considered ‘non-corresponding,’ legally there is no likelihood of confusion and the opposition is rejected.

Is it taken into account that my logo may be upside down on a product?
Not so in opposition proceedings. The Court confirmed that in a trademark application, signs are compared only in the form and orientation in which they are registered in the trademark register. Potential use in a different position is not relevant to the comparison of signs.

Do abstract stripes or shapes have a specific meaning in trademark law?
Usually not. The Court often rules that abstract geometric shapes (such as stripes) have no conceptual meaning. As a result, the comparison falls back purely on the visual aspect, since a phonetic or conceptual comparison is impossible.

Conclusion

The Puma v EUIPO ruling demonstrates that even world-famous trademarks with a great reputation cannot claim a monopoly on abstract forms sufficiently different from their registration. The visual impression of the mark as registered remains the gold standard.