Brands thrive on their recognition. But where does permissible inspiration end – and where does a legally relevant approximation that triggers a trademark infringement begin? This question arises in particular when well-known brands work with characteristic design elements that have become memorable over the years. In its decision I-20 U 35/25, the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf dealt with precisely this problem and showed how narrow the limits of permissible design in trademark law can be. The case concerning the well-known “PUMA” stripes is an example of the risks that exist when competitors adopt distinctive design elements and why a precise analysis of the overall impression is crucial.

The initial case

The Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf recently had to deal with central questions of trademark law in its ruling of September 25, 2025, case no. I-20 U 35/25: How far does the protection against imitated design elements extend and where is the boundary between permissible creative freedom and an infringement of Section 14 MarkenG?

The starting point of the proceedings was a dispute between the international sports brand “PUMA” and a manufacturer of sports shoes based in Spain. The latter sold three shoe models whose stripe design “PUMA” considered to be an infringement of its trademark rights. “PUMA” therefore applied for an injunction to prohibit the manufacturer from offering, advertising and distributing the models within the EU.

The Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court followed “PUMA” in two out of three cases and thus sent a clear signal: Anyone who adopts formative design elements of well-known trademarks quickly moves into the area of inadmissible trademark infringement.

Distinctiveness of the injunction mark

The relevant EU figurative mark “PUMA” (registration number 008461469), which is registered for shoes, among other things, enjoys increased protection due to its high reputation.

As one of the leading sports brands, “PUMA” has considerable distinctiveness that has been consolidated through many years of intensive use. Accordingly, the scope of protection of the trademark must be drawn particularly narrowly. Other manufacturers could benefit from the popularity of the mark if they use identical or similar design elements. Such an approximation harbors the risk that buyers will mentally associate the products with “PUMA”, be it through a supposed sub-line, a new design or simply through a resulting likelihood of confusion, although the goods are not actually from “PUMA”.

Similarity of signs and trademark use

In the proceedings, the overall impression of the contested designs was of central importance. It was particularly important that the disputed stripes ran from the bottom left to the top right at an angle of 15 degrees, as in the case of “PUMA”. In two out of three models, the stripes also tapered in the same direction, which further increased the similarity to the original. Although the contested stripes had two interruptions, this deviation was not sufficient to cancel out the overall impression of a continuous stripe. The OLG Düsseldorf therefore affirmed a sufficient similarity of the signs and thus also a likelihood of confusion. Especially in the case of sports shoes, the design is regularly perceived as an indication of origin. Even the labeling of the shoes with the name of the defendant did not change this. This could just as easily be understood as a model name and was therefore unsuitable to remove the similarity of the signs. The application for the third model, on the other hand, was rejected because its design did not convey the defining impression of a continuous striped element, meaning that the required overall impression of similarity between the marks was not present here.

Fault and infringement of § 14 MarkenG

For fault under trademark law, it depends on whether the act was negligent or intentional. Anyone who fails to exercise the care required in traffic acts negligently. Case law sets high standards in this respect: Anyone who sells goods in the course of trade has extensive duties of investigation and monitoring in order to avoid possible infringements of third party rights. Whether an infringement of Section 14 MarkenG has occurred depends largely on the likelihood of confusion, i.e. the question of whether the relevant public could assume that the goods originate from the trademark owner or are economically related to them.

Practical consequences for entrepreneurs

The case illustrates how narrow the boundaries are in trademark law and that even supposedly minor design details could be protected under trademark law if they could be sufficient to create a likelihood of confusion in the overall impression. Companies should therefore carry out regular trademark and design checks in order to gain an overview of possible similar trademarks and identify potential conflicts at an early stage.

If you are unsure about possible overlaps, legal advice offers the best protection against potential risks.

In our podcast episode Trademark law and Chiquita bananas: What companies can learn from it, we also shed light on the extent of trademark protection against imitations.