EUIPO, Opposition Division, Decision of 16 October 2025 - Opposition No. B 3 225 793
The German sportswear company PUMA SE, owner of several figurative EU trade marks depicting its famous leaping cat, filed an opposition against a trade mark application filed by Mr. Lukáš Rohlík, based in the Czech Republic.
The contested sign consisted of a stylised big cat leaping to the right, placed above the word SUPERFLY, covering goods in Classes 9 and 25 (including clothing, footwear, accessories, and electronic items such as headphones, cameras and smartwatches).
PUMA relied on three earlier EU trade marks — all featuring its iconic feline device — and invoked both:
The German sportswear giant claimed a long-standing and exceptional reputation throughout the EU, particularly in Germany, for apparel, footwear, and headgear, and argued that the contested mark sought to capitalize on the aura of its brand identity.
Under Article 8(5) EUTMR, an opposition based on reputation requires proof that the earlier mark is known by a significant part of the public and that use of the later mark would take unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to, that reputation.
PUMA submitted extensive evidence covering several decades of commercial activity and brand promotion, including:
Based on this evidence, the EUIPO concluded that the PUMA mark enjoys a broad and long-standing reputation, particularly in Germany, which suffices to establish a reputation within the European Union.
Visually and conceptually, both signs depict a large feline in motion, in a dynamic and leaping posture. While the direction of movement differs (leftward for PUMA, rightward for SUPERFLY) and the contested sign’s animal resembles a lion with a mane, the overall idea of a feline leaping across a surface produces a similar visual impression.
The Opposition Division found that this low but significant conceptual and visual similarity, combined with PUMA’s exceptional reputation, was sufficient to create a “mental link” in the minds of the relevant public, as defined by the Court of Justice in Intel (C-252/07, 27 November 2008).
Such a link is particularly likely for goods connected with the sports and lifestyle sectors, where PUMA’s presence and brand image are dominant.
The EUIPO considered that use of the contested “SUPERFLY” mark for products closely related to sports and fashion would unjustifiably benefit from the reputation and values associated with the PUMA brand.
The Division emphasised that PUMA’s earlier marks convey strong symbolic attributes — speed, agility, strength and excellence — built through decades of investment and sponsorship.
By reproducing a similar feline figure for comparable goods, the applicant would free-ride on PUMA’s marketing power, obtaining an “economic boost” without equivalent effort or investment.
Accordingly, the EUIPO held that the use of the contested mark would take unfair advantage of the distinctive character and reputation of PUMA’s earlier marks within the meaning of Article 8(5) EUTMR.
This finding concerned:
For the remaining goods in Class 9 (such as computers, tablets, televisions, or other electronic devices), the EUIPO found no sufficient connection to PUMA’s business sphere.
These products belong to the consumer electronics industry, distributed through distinct channels and unrelated to the sportswear sector.
Accordingly, the Opposition Division partially upheld the opposition:
This decision illustrates the broad protection granted to reputed trade marks under Article 8(5) EUTMR, even in the absence of direct confusion.
The EUIPO reaffirmed that the mere conceptual proximity between two figurative elements — here, a leaping feline — may suffice to establish unfair advantage where the earlier mark enjoys exceptional recognition.
The case confirms PUMA’s status as a trans-sectoral brand whose protection extends beyond sports apparel to products conveying lifestyle, performance, and design values.
