Puma Prevails in China as SPC Upholds Formstrip Trademark Against Lookalike Shoe Designs
Published 24 March 2026
Yu Du
In a decision of significant importance for brand protection in China, the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) ruled in favor of Puma SE in a dispute involving design patents for athletic shoes. The SPC held that the design at issue conflicted with Puma’s prior “Formstrip” trademark and revoked the previous decisions. Similar conclusions were consistently reached in other related cases.
This judgment provides important clarification on the relationship between design patents and prior trademark rights under Chinese law, and further establishes the principle that design patents must not be used as a tool to circumvent existing trademark protection.
Background of the Case
The dispute originated from multiple design patents for athletic shoes applied for and obtained by Jiangsu Dowell Sports Goods Co., Ltd. in 2010 and subsequent years. The relevant designs all featured curved stripe patterns on the lateral side of the shoe upper, which Puma alleged were highly similar to its well-known “Formstrip” trademark.
Puma’s stripe mark has been in use since 1958 and has been registered and continuously used in China for many years, including registrations in 1976 (Registration No. G426712), 1991 (Registration No. G581191), and 2007 (Registration No. G925647), all approved for use on footwear. Prior to the filing dates of the disputed design patents, the mark had already acquired a high degree of distinctiveness and recognition in the Chinese market.
On 1 December 2022, Puma filed invalidation actions with the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA), arguing that the disputed design patents violated Article 23 of the PRC Patent Law by conflicting with its prior trademark rights.
On 14 September 2022, CNIPA issued decisions finding that, from an overall perspective, the designs would not necessarily cause confusion, and therefore rejected the invalidation requests and upheld the validity of the patents.
Puma subsequently appealed to the court. On 29 October 2024, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court rendered a first-instance judgment upholding CNIPA’s decisions. On 12 December 2024, Puma appealed to the SPC.
Key Findings of the SPC
The central issue in this case was whether the disputed design patents violated Article 23(3) of the Patent Law, namely whether they conflicted with prior rights of others.
The SPC made clear that this issue should be assessed under a substantive framework analogous to trademark infringement analysis, with a focus on whether the implementation of the design would harm the legitimate interests embodied in the prior trademark rights.
1. Trademark Use in the Design
The SPC first determined that the use of the pattern in the design constituted trademark use.
It noted that, in the footwear industry, prominently placing a graphic sign on the lateral side of the shoe upper is a typical method of indicating the source of goods. In this case, the stripe pattern was used in that position in a prominent and large-scale manner, making it highly likely that the relevant public would perceive it as an indicator of origin rather than a purely decorative element. Accordingly, the Court found that the design exhibited clear characteristics of trademark use.
2. Similarity and Likelihood of Confusion
The SPC then analyzed similarity and the likelihood of confusion.
First, the goods at issue and those covered by Puma’s trademark were both athletic shoes, belonging to the same category. Second, in terms of overall visual impression, the disputed designs were highly similar to Puma’s Formstrip mark in several key aspects, including: 1) a trajectory formed by smooth, curved lines; 2) a layout extending from the lower front part of the shoe toward the upper rear; and 3) a structure composed of three lines. Although there were differences in width, spacing, and curvature, these differences were insufficient to alter the overall visual impression.
Considering the strong distinctiveness of Puma’s trademark and its high level of recognition resulting from long-term and extensive use, the Court concluded that confusion among the relevant public was highly likely.
3. Rejection of the Legitimate Use Defense
The defendant argued that its design was derived from a registered trademark it was licensed to use, and therefore constituted legitimate use. The SPC rejected this defense, holding that the defendant had made substantive alterations to the licensed mark in actual use, bringing it closer to the core features of Puma’s mark and effectively appropriating the distinctive elements of Puma’s sign. Under such circumstances, the use could not be regarded as a legitimate exercise of its own trademark rights.
Judgment of the SPC
Accordingly, on 26 December 2025, the SPC rendered its final judgment, revoking the first-instance judgment of the Beijing IP Court, revoking the relevant decisions of CNIPA, and ordering a re-examination of the disputed design patent.
Across all related cases, the Court consistently held that the disputed designs conflicted with Puma’s prior trademark rights.
Comment
This case may be regarded as a milestone in China’s judicial practice on intellectual property. The SPC clearly established that, in determining whether a design patent conflicts with prior trademark rights, a substantive analysis based on trademark law principles should be applied, rather than a purely formal comparison of designs.
Through this judgment, the SPC addressed a long-standing issue in practice, namely, that some applicants have taken advantage of the lack of substantive examination for design patents to incorporate trademark-like signs into patent protection, thereby attempting to evade infringement risks. The case sends a clear judicial signal: where a design in practice functions as an indicator of source and is likely to cause confusion with a prior trademark, it cannot obtain protection through a design patent, and may instead be declared invalid.
This ruling significantly strengthens the position of brand owners and provides a more solid legal basis for addressing the practice of using design patents as a defense against trademark infringement.
This judgment provides important clarification on the relationship between design patents and prior trademark rights under Chinese law, and further establishes the principle that design patents must not be used as a tool to circumvent existing trademark protection.
Background of the Case
The dispute originated from multiple design patents for athletic shoes applied for and obtained by Jiangsu Dowell Sports Goods Co., Ltd. in 2010 and subsequent years. The relevant designs all featured curved stripe patterns on the lateral side of the shoe upper, which Puma alleged were highly similar to its well-known “Formstrip” trademark.
Puma’s stripe mark has been in use since 1958 and has been registered and continuously used in China for many years, including registrations in 1976 (Registration No. G426712), 1991 (Registration No. G581191), and 2007 (Registration No. G925647), all approved for use on footwear. Prior to the filing dates of the disputed design patents, the mark had already acquired a high degree of distinctiveness and recognition in the Chinese market.
On 1 December 2022, Puma filed invalidation actions with the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA), arguing that the disputed design patents violated Article 23 of the PRC Patent Law by conflicting with its prior trademark rights.
On 14 September 2022, CNIPA issued decisions finding that, from an overall perspective, the designs would not necessarily cause confusion, and therefore rejected the invalidation requests and upheld the validity of the patents.
Puma subsequently appealed to the court. On 29 October 2024, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court rendered a first-instance judgment upholding CNIPA’s decisions. On 12 December 2024, Puma appealed to the SPC.
Key Findings of the SPC
The central issue in this case was whether the disputed design patents violated Article 23(3) of the Patent Law, namely whether they conflicted with prior rights of others.
The SPC made clear that this issue should be assessed under a substantive framework analogous to trademark infringement analysis, with a focus on whether the implementation of the design would harm the legitimate interests embodied in the prior trademark rights.
1. Trademark Use in the Design
The SPC first determined that the use of the pattern in the design constituted trademark use.
It noted that, in the footwear industry, prominently placing a graphic sign on the lateral side of the shoe upper is a typical method of indicating the source of goods. In this case, the stripe pattern was used in that position in a prominent and large-scale manner, making it highly likely that the relevant public would perceive it as an indicator of origin rather than a purely decorative element. Accordingly, the Court found that the design exhibited clear characteristics of trademark use.
2. Similarity and Likelihood of Confusion
The SPC then analyzed similarity and the likelihood of confusion.
First, the goods at issue and those covered by Puma’s trademark were both athletic shoes, belonging to the same category. Second, in terms of overall visual impression, the disputed designs were highly similar to Puma’s Formstrip mark in several key aspects, including: 1) a trajectory formed by smooth, curved lines; 2) a layout extending from the lower front part of the shoe toward the upper rear; and 3) a structure composed of three lines. Although there were differences in width, spacing, and curvature, these differences were insufficient to alter the overall visual impression.
Considering the strong distinctiveness of Puma’s trademark and its high level of recognition resulting from long-term and extensive use, the Court concluded that confusion among the relevant public was highly likely.
3. Rejection of the Legitimate Use Defense
The defendant argued that its design was derived from a registered trademark it was licensed to use, and therefore constituted legitimate use. The SPC rejected this defense, holding that the defendant had made substantive alterations to the licensed mark in actual use, bringing it closer to the core features of Puma’s mark and effectively appropriating the distinctive elements of Puma’s sign. Under such circumstances, the use could not be regarded as a legitimate exercise of its own trademark rights.
Judgment of the SPC
Accordingly, on 26 December 2025, the SPC rendered its final judgment, revoking the first-instance judgment of the Beijing IP Court, revoking the relevant decisions of CNIPA, and ordering a re-examination of the disputed design patent.
Across all related cases, the Court consistently held that the disputed designs conflicted with Puma’s prior trademark rights.
Comment
This case may be regarded as a milestone in China’s judicial practice on intellectual property. The SPC clearly established that, in determining whether a design patent conflicts with prior trademark rights, a substantive analysis based on trademark law principles should be applied, rather than a purely formal comparison of designs.
Through this judgment, the SPC addressed a long-standing issue in practice, namely, that some applicants have taken advantage of the lack of substantive examination for design patents to incorporate trademark-like signs into patent protection, thereby attempting to evade infringement risks. The case sends a clear judicial signal: where a design in practice functions as an indicator of source and is likely to cause confusion with a prior trademark, it cannot obtain protection through a design patent, and may instead be declared invalid.
This ruling significantly strengthens the position of brand owners and provides a more solid legal basis for addressing the practice of using design patents as a defense against trademark infringement.