On 2 September 2026, the EU General Court dismissed Puma’s action in Case T-376/25, Puma v EUIPO – Sir Safety System, and upheld a footwear-sole design registered by the Italian company Sir Safety System. Puma argued that its “Hybrid” soles, with a pebble-like midsole, had set a market trend, so later designs needed to differ more to be valid. This General Court design ruling on Puma rejects that idea: setting a trend neither restricts the freedom of later designers nor gives the earlier designs broader protection. It matters to fashion, footwear and consumer-goods companies.
Key takeaways
- The General Court confirmed that the contested sole design had individual character against 30 earlier Puma designs and products.
- Creating a trend is not a factor that limits the designer’s freedom, and it does not widen the protection of the trendsetter’s own designs.
- The ruling is consistent with the Court of Justice’s Deity Shoes judgment of December 2025: fashion trends are neutral in the individual character test.
What did the General Court decide in Puma v EUIPO?
Sir Safety System obtained an international registration under the Hague System designating the EU (No DM/214918) for a “footwear sole” on 18 June 2021. On 28 January 2022 Puma applied to the EUIPO to have it declared invalid for lack of novelty and individual character, relying on 11 earlier EU designs and 19 Puma shoes sold on Amazon. The EUIPO Invalidity Division rejected the application on 5 April 2024 and the Third Board of Appeal confirmed that decision on 26 March 2025 (Case R 1137/2024-3).
In its judgment of 2 September 2026 (ECLI:EU:T:2026:515), the Seventh Chamber dismissed Puma’s single plea and ordered it to pay the costs. Given the dates of the case, the Court applied Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 in its version before Regulation (EU) 2024/2822. The individual character test it applied, however, is the same one now set out in Article 7 of the codified EU Design Regulation (EU) 2026/715.
Why being the trendsetter did not help Puma
Puma claimed that, by creating the pebble-like structure, it had exhausted the designer’s freedom in that segment, so the Board should have required bigger differences. The Court gave three answers (paragraphs 51 to 57):
- The designer’s freedom covers far more than the particle structure: the shape, materials and colours of every part of the sole remain open.
- Whether a design follows or creates a trend is relevant, at most, to its aesthetic perception and commercial success, not to individual character.
- An invalidity action for lack of individual character does not protect an earlier right. Even if the structure had been completely new, that would not give Puma’s earlier designs a broader scope than the Regulation grants. Puma had also produced no evidence that the structure was new when it was disclosed.
Puma’s general counsel has criticised the outcome, according to World IP Review (4 September 2026), which describes it as warning of a “serious loophole”.
How the Court compared the designs
| Issue | Puma’s argument | General Court’s finding |
|---|---|---|
| Informed user | Attention slightly above average | Relatively high attention and direct comparison |
| Designer’s freedom | Exhausted by the Puma Hybrid soles | High: shape, materials, colours and decoration remain free |
| Dominant feature | The particle midsole dominates | Not dominant once the bottom, front and back views are considered |
| Undersole and colour | Banal, barely visible in use | Relevant: the undersole affects comfort and stability and weighs in the purchase |
| Disclaimed parts of earlier designs | Should not be counted | Count if they were disclosed clearly and precisely |
How does this ruling fit with Deity Shoes?
In Deity Shoes (Case C-323/24, 18 December 2025), a reference from the Commercial Court No 1 of Alicante, the Court of Justice held that design protection requires no minimum degree of creativity beyond novelty and individual character. It added that fashion trends do not limit the designer’s freedom, and that features resulting from trends do not weigh less in the overall impression on the informed user.
Deity Shoes concerned a designer who followed trends; Puma, a company claiming to have created one. Together they say the same thing: trends neither lower nor raise the bar. What counts is the overall impression of each design against each earlier design, taken individually.
What this means for your business
- Do not rely on being first. If a feature defines your product line, register the variants that matter, not just one version. Since 1 July 2026, an EU multiple application can include up to 50 designs in different classes, according to the EUIPO.
- File every relevant view. The comparison runs on the views disclosed; undersides, colours and details can make or break individual character.
- Keep dated evidence of when each feature first reached the market.
- Watch competitors’ filings, including Hague designations of the EU, and decide early whether to challenge them or to rely on infringement actions, where the scope of your own design is what matters.
Our team for industrial design registration and invalidity actions in the EU can review whether your portfolio covers the variants your competitors are likely to approach.
When to bring in an adviser
- Before filing an invalidity action: a weak claim costs fees and can end, as here, with an order to pay costs.
- When a lookalike appears: infringement and invalidity follow different tests, and choosing the wrong route wastes time. Our IP litigation coordination covers both.
Frequently asked questions
What was Case T-376/25 about?
Puma asked the EUIPO to invalidate a footwear-sole design registered by Sir Safety System, an international registration designating the EU, arguing that it lacked individual character against Puma’s earlier Hybrid designs. The EUIPO refused, and on 2 September 2026 the General Court dismissed Puma’s action and ordered it to pay the costs.
Do trendsetting designs get broader protection in the EU?
No. According to the General Court, creating a trend does not restrict the freedom of other designers and does not expand the protection of the trendsetter’s earlier designs when assessing the individual character of a later design. Trends may influence aesthetic perception and sales, but not the legal test, which compares overall impressions.
Can IP Global Guard challenge or defend an EU design?
Yes. We assess the earlier designs and evidence, prepare invalidity applications or defences before the EUIPO, directly where our professionals are entitled to act and otherwise through qualified representatives, and coordinate litigation counsel for any appeal, with one point of contact for Europe, Latin America and Africa.
How IP Global Guard can help protect your collection
This case shows that a strong design portfolio is built at filing, not in court. IP Global Guard, the IP services line of META Channel Corporation Limited, registers, monitors and defends designs across more than 25 jurisdictions in Europe, Latin America and Africa, with one strategy and one billing relationship.
Tell us which product lines define your brand and which competitors worry you. We will review your registrations, identify the variants to protect and advise on whether to challenge a rival design. Get in touch with our design team.
This article is general information, not legal advice, and reflects the situation on the date of publication.
Sources
- General Court, judgment of 2 September 2026, Puma v EUIPO – Sir Safety System, T-376/25, ECLI:EU:T:2026:515
- Court of Justice, judgment of 18 December 2025, Deity Shoes, C-323/24, ECLI:EU:C:2025:983
- EUR-Lex, Regulation (EU) 2026/715 on European Union designs (codification), OJ 30 March 2026
- EUIPO, The modernised EU design legal framework is now fully applicable (1 July 2026)
- World IP Review, Puma GC warns of ‘serious loophole’ after EU design defeat (4 September 2026)
- World Trademark Review, PUMA claims CJEU ruling puts design owners in ‘untenable position’ (2 September 2026)
