(3 minute read)

In a world where fashion and law intersect, unexpected clashes can lead to intriguing legal battles. The recent case of Puma v EUIPO (Case T-647/22) sheds light on the complexities surrounding intellectual property rights in the realm of artists and creative design, with none other than music sensation Rihanna at the centre of the controversy.

The courtroom drama unfolded at the General Court of the European Union where Puma found themselves in the spotlight, striving to clinch a community design registration for their latest line of sports shoes. However, their hopes were dashed when the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) threw a spanner in the works, dismissing the application. Their reason? None other than Rihanna’s earlier public strut, which was inevitably plastered all over social media, in shoes eerily reminiscent of Puma’s proposed design.

The court’s decision to uphold the EUIPO’S ruling highlights the significance of prior art i.e., art pre-exposed to the public eye, in determining the validity of design registrations. Despite Puma’s efforts to distinguish their design, the online presence of Rihanna’s earlier endorsement of Puma’s proposed shoe design proved decisive in declaring the design’s registration invalid.

This legal saga emphasises the impact of those in the creative arts industry – including celebrities, social media influencers, artists, and graphic designers – on intellectual property rights. Rihanna’s involvement in this legal showdown showcases the far-reaching consequences of endorsements far beyond mere brand promotion.

For Puma, the outcome serves as a valuable lesson in the ever-evolving landscape of art, fashion and design. It highlights the need for brands to carefully consider the broader cultural context and potential influencers when developing and seeking protection for their designs. As for Rihanna, her impact on the fashion industry extends far beyond her music career. Her endorsement can wield significant influence, as evidenced by its pivotal role in the outcome of this case.

In conclusion, Puma v EUIPO (Case T-647/22) serves as a reminder of the interconnected nature between the creative community and intellectual property. As the creative communities continue to navigate this dynamic landscape, they must remain mindful of the potential legal implications of exposure to their artistic oeuvres.

This story reminds everyone involved in the creative arts industry of the importance of protecting their designs and creations even at its embryonic stage. Once your work enters the digital space, it is a “free for all”. That is where trademark and copyright protection comes into play; protection which should not be underestimated.

The case also emphasises the importance of protecting the integrity and originality of designs and creations in an industry were innovation and evolution reigns supreme. While Rihanna’s footsteps may have left a mark on this legal battle, the broader implications of this case extend beyond the courtroom, shaping the future of intellectual property rights in the creative arts industry.

Joy Akah-Douglas | Principal & Solicitor – Advocate