Sabel BV v. Puma AG
European Union Court of Justice
Case C-251/95, [1997] E.C.R. I-6191 (1997)
- Written by Margot Parmenter, JD
Facts
Dutch company Sabel BV (plaintiff) applied to register as a trademark in Germany an image of a large cat running, accompanied by the lowercase text “sabèl” and other illustrative elements. Sabel wanted to apply the trademark to leather goods, clothing, and accessories. German company Puma AG (defendant) opposed the registration, arguing that Sabel’s proposed mark resembled its own trademark, comprised of a running puma unaccompanied by text or embellishment. Puma’s mark was already registered for the same category of goods as those made by Sabel. The German Patent Office found no resemblance between the two marks for trademark purposes. Puma appealed to the Germany Federal Patents Court, which found that the two marks did resemble each other and rejected Sabel’s trademark application. Sabel sought an annulment of that decision from the Germany Federal Court of Justice. That court provisionally concluded that no likelihood of confusion existed between the marks, but it referred the question of the proper interpretation of Article 4(1)(b) of Directive 89/104/EEC (directive), the directive outlining the likelihood-of-confusion standard, to the European Union (EU) Court of Justice, which considered the issue in a preliminary ruling.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
