![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.hoefer-pat.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/03\/schuhe-1.png\")
<\/p>\nIn 2009 and 2011, the Belgian company Shoe Branding Europe filed an application with the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) for registration of two EU trade marks (illustration below, left), one for footwear and the other for safety footwear. The German company adidas opposed registration of those trade marks relying, inter alia, on one of its marks reproduced below on the right:<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
By decisions of 2015 and 2016, EUIPO allowed adidas\u2019 oppositions and refused registration of the
\ntwo marks applied for by Shoe Branding Europe.
\nIn particular, EUIPO considered that, given a certain degree of similarity between the marks at
\nissue, the identity or the similarity between the goods covered by those marks and the high
\nreputation of adidas\u2019 earlier mark, there was a likelihood that the relevant public might establish a
\nlink between the marks at issue and that the use of the marks applied for could take unfair
\nadvantage of the reputation of adidas\u2019 mark, without that use being, in the case at hand, justified by
\ndue cause.
\nBy today\u2019s judgments, the General Court dismisses the actions brought by Shoe Branding Europe
\nagainst EUIPO\u2019s two decisions and thereby confirms the latter.
\nAccording to the Court, EUIPO did not commit an error of assessment in finding, in particular, (i) it
\nlikely that the use of the marks applied for would take unfair advantage of the repute of adidas\u2019
\nmark and (ii) that Shoe Branding Europe had not demonstrated the existence of due cause for the
\nuse of the marks applied for.
\nSo far as concerns the mark applied for by Shoe Branding Europe in 2009 for footwear, it should
\nbe recalled that the General Court is ruling on this subject for the second time. By judgment of 21
\nMay 2015, the General Court had annulled a previous EUIPO decision which had incorrectly found that there was no similarity whatsoever between the marks at issue. That judgment of the
\nGeneral Court was upheld by the Court of Justice by order of 17 February 2016 (for details, see
\nPress Release No. 17\/16).<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n