Plaintiff: PUMA SE
Defendant: Decentralized Vision Limited
Case no.: R2451/2019-1
Jurisdiction: European Union
Industry: Fashion
Decision date: 18 Mar, 2021
In the case at hand, the differences are not sufficient to outweigh the similarity between the signs originating from the common distinctive verbal element ‘PUMA’, which is moreover the sole element in the earlier mark, and to exclude any likelihood of confusion in relation to identical goods and similar services. Therefore, consumers might believe that the conflicting goods and services come from the same undertaking or economically linked undertakings, even if their degree of attention is above average. As for the dissimilar services in Class 36, there is a link with the reputed goods of the earlier sign considering that clothing undertakings use payment services and the generalisation of cryptocurrency recently.
PUMA
