The UK’s Court of Appeal has issued a definitive ruling on the registration of position trademarks - marks that depend on their placement on products. The decision, centered on Adidas’ three-stripe design, highlights the necessity of precise definitions in trademark applications.
The case involved Adidas’ registered trademarks, which featured three vertical stripes on apparel and footwear. A challenge from Thom Browne questioned the validity of these marks, asserting they did not meet the legal standard for a “single sign.” The court concurred, determining that Adidas’ descriptions were overly broad, allowing for variations in stripe placement, length, and orientation. This ambiguity, the court ruled, rendered the marks indistinct and unregistrable under trademark law.
Critical Considerations for Trademark Applicants
Define a Single, Distinct Sign
Trademarks must represent a singular, clearly identifiable mark. The court stressed that vague descriptions risk invalidation by permitting multiple interpretations. For position trademarks, this requires specifying both the visual design and its exact placement.Limit Descriptive Flexibility
While written descriptions may allow for some variation, they must not encompass an excessive range of possibilities. Adidas’ descriptions, which permitted stripes in diverse locations and orientations, failed to establish a distinct sign. This underscores the need for precise language that aligns with the graphical representation.Placement Is Integral to Distinctiveness
The court affirmed that the positioning of a mark on a product is central to its uniqueness. A position trademark’s identity derives from both its visual design and its strategic placement. Brands must therefore consider both elements when drafting applications.
Strategic Implications for Trademark Protection
The ruling serves as a cautionary note for businesses seeking to register position trademarks. Marks relying on placement - such as logos on footwear or patterns on clothing - must be described with meticulous detail to avoid rejection. Brands should ensure that visual examples and written descriptions converge to define a single, unambiguous sign.
Trademark monitoring also takes on greater importance. The decision reinforces that confusability between marks depends on their ability to be clearly distinguished. Vague descriptions create vulnerabilities that competitors may exploit. Businesses should audit their trademark portfolios to ensure descriptions are narrowly tailored, minimizing the risk of disputes.
IP Defender, a trademark monitoring service, assists businesses in safeguarding their intellectual property by tracking national trademark databases for conflicts and infringements. The service operates in 50+ countries, including the EU, the US, and Australia, offering a scalable solution for protecting trademarks without manual oversight.
The case reaffirms a core principle: trademark law demands clarity. Amidst evolving design trends, brands must balance creativity with legal precision to secure their intellectual property effectively.