– Leon Katona-Lukic
In a recent legal dispute between the sportswear giant Adidas and fashion label Thom Browne, it became clear that not every stripe design on clothing constitutes a trademark infringement. Adidas claimed that the use of four horizontal stripes on a Thom Browne hoodie created a likelihood of confusion with its well-known three-stripe design and filed a lawsuit. However, the Regional Court of Nuremberg-Fürth in Germany (Judgment of 06.09.2024, Case No. 4 HK O 8208/21) disagreed and dismissed the lawsuit.
Key Takeaways from the Judgment
- Likelihood of Confusion is Context-Dependent
The court emphasized that potential buyers of high-end luxury goods are particularly discerning. In the luxury segment, customers pay close attention to details and the overall appearance of a product. In this case, it was not just the number of stripes that mattered, but also their width and the overall design. Since Thom Browne used the stripes in a distinct style and context, the court found no likelihood of confusion with Adidas’s three-stripe design.
- Distinctiveness and Market Segment Matter
The judgment highlights that the distinctiveness of a trademark and the typical branding practices in the relevant market segment are crucial factors. In the fashion industry, there are various practices when it comes to using stripes and other patterns. The court considered Thom Browne’s four stripes as a decorative element rather than a trademark use. In the luxury fashion market, where customers are more attentive and brand-conscious, they are likely to recognize the differences and correctly attribute the origin of the products.
- The Role of Online Presentation
The court also took into account how the product was presented on the seller’s website. Thom Browne showcased the hoodie along with its brand name and other clear indicators of origin on its website. The court therefore saw no risk that consumers would confuse the product with Adidas’s three-stripe design. This decision shows that when assessing trademark infringement, online presentation and the context in which the product is offered play a significant role.
- No Additional Claims Under Unfair Competition Law
Interestingly, the court also determined that unfair competition law cannot offer broader protection than trademark law itself. It dismissed claims for an injunction under the German Unfair Competition Act (UWG), as there was no trademark infringement to begin with.
- Legal Grounds Cited by Adidas
Adidas based its lawsuit on various legal grounds. Primarily, it claimed violations of the German Trademark Act (14 Para. 2 Sentence 1 No. 2 and No. 3, Para. 5 MarkenG), which protects trademarks and their distinctiveness. Additionally, Adidas referred to claims under the German Unfair Competition Act ( 8 Para. 1, 3 Para. 1, 5 Para. 2 UWG or 8 Para. 1, 3 Para. 1, 4 No. 3). However, the court rejected both the trademark and unfair competition claims.
- Costs and Preliminary Enforcement
The court overturned two previous default judgments against Thom Browne and dismissed the lawsuit filed by Adidas. Adidas is required to bear the costs of the legal dispute, and the judgment is provisionally enforceable against a security deposit.
Not Yet Final
It is important to note that this judgment is not yet final. Adidas has the option to appeal the decision, which could escalate the legal dispute to a higher court.
Résumé
This case illustrates that the assessment of trademark infringement heavily depends on the specific circumstances, particularly the distinctiveness of the trademark and the level of attention of the target audience. Manufacturers and designers should therefore always ensure a clear and distinguishable presentation of their products to avoid potential conflicts in trademark law.