No confusion in the curves: lessons from Puma v EUIPO Ningbo Gongfang Commercial Management
This judgment centres around visual similarity and confirms how the EU courts assess likelihood of confusion in cases involving purely figurative trade marks, particularly within the fashion and sportswear sector. The General Court of the EU upheld the decision of the Board of Appeal of the EUIPO, confirming that no likelihood of confusion existed between the marks at issue despite the identity of the goods.
Background
The dispute arose when Puma SE opposed an application filed by Chinese company Ningbo Gongfang Commercial Management Co Ltd for a figurative EU trade mark consisting of a curved stripe and an irregular triangle within a black rectangle:
Puma relied on three earlier EU figurative marks featuring one or more curved stripes ascending to the right, commonly associated with its branding:
The opposition was based on Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001, which prohibits registration where there is a likelihood of confusion due to similarity between marks and identity or similarity of goods. It was undisputed that the goods (clothing and footwear in class 25) were identical and targeted at the general public with an average level of attention. The central issue, therefore, was whether the signs themselves were similar enough to create confusion.
Visual comparison of the signs
The General Court’s analysis focused heavily on the visual differences between the marks.
Puma referred to the O2 Holdings (C 533/06, EU:C:2008:339) ruling, in which the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) stated it was necessary to assess all circumstances in which the mark might be used. However, the General Court clarified that this principle applies to infringement cases, which look at how a mark is actually used in the marketplace, and does not apply to opposition proceedings, which focus only on the mark “as registered” or applied for, specifically pointing to the Chanel v EUIPO Huawei Technologies (T-44/20) ruling.
Therefore, Puma’s argument that the black background might “disappear” on dark clothing, or be perceived differently if rotated “upside down”, was rejected. The General Court reaffirmed established case law that hypothetical or alternative uses of a mark are irrelevant in assessing similarity. This strict approach reinforces legal certainty by limiting the analysis to the sign as registered.
No phonetic or conceptual similarity
Given that all the marks were purely figurative, the General Court agreed that a phonetic comparison was not possible.
On conceptual similarity, the General Court held that abstract geometric shapes, such as stripes, generally lack inherent conceptual meaning. As a result, conceptual comparison was not possible.
Global assessment of likelihood of confusion
The General Court reiterated that likelihood of confusion must be assessed globally, taking into account the interdependence between the similarity of the marks and the similarity of the goods. While identical goods can lower the threshold for finding confusion, the marks themselves must be at least similar.
In this case, the General Court found that the signs were visually dissimilar overall, with no phonetic or conceptual overlap. Consequently, one of the cumulative conditions under Article 8(1)(b) was not satisfied, and the opposition had to fail.
Puma also argued that its earlier marks had enhanced distinctiveness due to extensive use and that they formed a “family of marks” based on stripe motifs. However, the General Court rejected these arguments due to insufficient substantiation.
Conclusion
This judgment underscores several key principles in EU trade mark law.
First, it highlights the importance of the overall visual impression in cases involving figurative marks, especially where no verbal elements are present. Even if marks share certain design features, differences in structure, composition, and background can outweigh similarities.
Second, the ruling reinforces the principle that marks must be compared in their registered form, excluding speculative variations in use.
Finally, the decision reaffirms that not every visual similarity amounts to confusion and serves as a warning to businesses in the fashion and sportswear sector that sometimes even identical goods and potentially strong brand recognition cannot establish a likelihood of confusion.
Case details at a glance
Jurisdiction: European Union
Decision level: General Court
Parties: Puma SE v EUIPO and Ningbo Gongfang Commercial Management Co Ltd
Date: 21 January 2026
Citation: T-43/25
Decision: dycip.com/euipo-t4325
