The court notably dismissed Puma’s argument that the comparison between the earlier designs and the contested designs should be made based on the soles of the shoes. 

The decision provides valuable guidance as to what constitutes evidence of genuine use in revocation actions before the EUIPO.

The Supreme Court's ruling in this case emphasises the importance of the principle of specialty and the high standard of evidence required to demonstrate bad faith.

The relevant EU consumer is likely to establish a sufficiently clear and direct link between DUTCH GENQUILA, used for wine, and the spirit drink protected by the PGI ‘Tequila’.

A change in marketing strategy may destroy the distinct market perceptions that previously enabled the marks’ co-existence, thus leading to a likelihood of confusion and association.  

The difference at the beginning of the marks was not sufficient to outweigh the visual similarity produced by the common group of letters ‘erla’ and would not preclude the relevant public from perceiving that common sequence. 

The Board of Appeal confirmed that there was no likelihood of confusion between two marks consisting of the photographic portrait of an elderly man in traditional farming attire, both covering wine. 

The case highlights the importance of determining the rights upon which an opposition may be brought when filing for an extension of time to oppose.

The EUIPO notably found that the two-second sound mark was not capable of conveying any message that consumers would be able to remember. 

Brand owners must evidence how their position marks have acquired distinctiveness for the parts of the goods on which they are affixed.