NEWS

How posts on Instagram did disclose the design of Puma’s shoes prior to the 12-month “grace period”

Judgment of the General Court of 06.03.2024 - T 647/22 – “PUMA”

 Contents

Background to the dispute

In 2019 Handelsmaatschappij J. Van Hilst BV (HJVH) filed with the EUIPO an application for a declaration of invalidity of the Community Design (registered in 2016 in Class 02-04) with the following seven views:

Puma Schuhe Schonfrist designrecht

According to HJVH the design lacked individual character because it had been disclosed prior to the 12-month “grace period”. HJHV referred to 3 posts with images (posted on the Instagram account “badgalriri”) from 2014 reporting that Rihanna had been appointed as the new creative director of Puma, showing her with these white shoes. EUIPO’s invalidity division declared Puma’s Community Design invalid. Puma appealed this decision to the Board of Appeal (BOA) in 2021, arguing that HJVH’s application for a declaration of invalidity of the design was inadmissible due to a breach of contract and that Puma had not disclosed the design prior to the 12-month “grace period” (calculated from the date of filing or priority date). BOA, however, has upheld the decision and Puma went to the General Court.

HJHVs application was admissible

The court confirmed that HJHV’s application for a declaration of nullity was admissible. Any allegation of a breach of contract, abusive character, etc., is irrelevant during the objective assessment of invalidity.

The General Court confirmed that the design had been disclosed

According to the General Court, the posts showing Rihanna with white these shoes made it possible to identify all the features of the prior design from various angles. In particular, the images were of sufficient quality. In December 2014, Rihanna was a world-famous pop star, her fans and fashion industry professionals were interested in the shoes Rihanna was wearing the day she became creative director at Puma.

Puma had to establish that the design had not become known within the EU in the normal course of business to the circles specialised in the sector, Article 7(1) of Regulation No 6/2002. It failed to do so. The General Court therefore dismissed the action. The Court’s judgement is not yet final.

To the point

Design applicants must strictly adhere to the 12-month novelty grace period from the first day of publication. This case shows how important it is to monitor also posts on social media.

MORE NEWS
Trademark Law

BGH “Mehmet Efendi”: No exhaustion from placing goods on the market in Turkey – association agreement does not extend the EEA

The BGH confirms: Placing EU trade mark goods on the market in Turkey does not trigger exhaustion within the EEA. The EEC–Turkey association framework does not extend the territorial scope of exhaustion; parallel imports into the EEA can be prohibited without the proprietor’s consent.
Trademark Law

BGH “LA BIOSTHETIQUE”: German courts have jurisdiction for targeted online advertising – supplier disclosure may be disproportionate

The BGH aligns international jurisdiction for online trademark infringement with the target market: what matters is where the addressed consumers/traders are located—not the server location or the advertiser’s seat. It also held that disclosure of suppliers/prior owners may exceptionally be disproportionate where the infringement lies solely in the presentation of exhausted goods.
Trade Secrets

CJEU: Infringing “possession” covers stock held abroad—and also indirect possession

The CJEU clarifies that trade mark owners may prohibit “possession” under Art. 10(3)(b) Directive 2015/2436 even where goods are stocked in another Member State—if intended for offering/placing on the market in the protection state. “Possession” also includes indirect control (supervisory/managerial authority).
Trademark Law

General Court: “Eco” may still shape the overall impression despite being descriptive

The General Court clarifies that descriptive elements can still matter in the comparison of signs—especially when placed at the beginning and drawing attention due to their length/position.
AI / Personality Rights

LG Hamburg: AI-generated X post remains attributable to the account operator

The Regional Court of Hamburg held that a continuing defamatory false statement on X remains unlawful under the law of statements even if the post was generated by AI. The account operator can be held responsible for the published content.
AI

Cologne Higher Regional Court: Meta may provisionally use public Facebook and Instagram data for AI training

The Cologne Higher Regional Court rejected an interim injunction against Meta’s announced use of publicly shared Facebook and Instagram data for AI training. In its summary assessment, the court considered the processing likely lawful, in particular on the basis of Article 6(1)(f) GDPR.

Karin Simon
Lawyer
Certified IP Lawyer

Susanne Graeser
Lawyer
Certified IP Lawyer

Uhlandstr. 2
80336 Munich
Germany

Karin Simon
Rechtsanwältin
Fachanwältin für gewerblichen Rechtsschutz

Susanne Graeser
Rechtsanwältin
Fachanwältin für gewerblichen Rechtsschutz

Uhlandstr. 2
D-80336 München