CA-2025-000162 - [2025] EWCA Civ 1340

adidas argues that the judge’s interpretation of the “one third or more” wording in the written descriptions was inconsistent, illogical and wrong. It points out that she accepted in [194] that those words were “clear in themselves”, but complains that she went on to say that “what this might mean in practice … is very far from clear”.

In my judgment there is nothing inconsistent or illogical or wrong in this reasoning. The fact that the words are clear does not mean that their effect is. As can be seen from cases like Red Bull, Hartwall and Glaxo, words that are clear in themselves may nevertheless set competent authorities, economic operators and the relevant public a puzzle in understanding what the subject-matter of the registration is, particularly when the written description extends more broadly than a pictorial representation which it accompanies. Moreover, as has repeatedly been held in the authorities, and as counsel for TB emphasised, such ambiguity gives the proprietor of such a registration an unfair competitive advantage.

As TB pointed out, not only could adidas have registered a number of trade marks in which the written descriptions corresponded to what was shown in the pictorial representations, but also, in the case of a number of the trade marks considered by the judge, adidas did so, and the judge held them to be validly registered.