There are a lot of brands which have acquired popularity and distinctiveness based on the way their labels and logos are placed on a given product. But did you know that these brands have the right to claim monopoly over the positioning of their label on products? Well, a 'position trademark', falling under the category of 'unconventional trademarks', allows proprietors to claim rights over the way their label is placed on a product, based on its distinctiveness. Having said the same, the legality of position marks is still comparatively new and unexplored by jurisdictions around the world.


The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) defines 'position trademark' as 'a sign, represented graphically, positioned on a particular part of a product in a constant size or particular proportion to the product'. Hence, a position Trademark consists of two aspects - the mark itself and the position/ placement of the mark on a product. In other words, WIPO recognizes a position mark as a 'constant element of an identical size placed on a product in a fixed position'. Since the application for registration of such a Trademark is based primarily on the placement or 'position' of the mark, a description detailing this position is the foremost requirement. It is pertinent to note that position marks would likely not be registrable if the description indicates that the placement of the mark on a product is variable. In order to claim monopoly over the positioning of a Trademark, the applicant is required to establish the fact that the logo along with its position on their product is distinctive enough to serve as a source identifier.


It is interesting to note how various deciding bodies have adjudicated upon the distinctiveness of a position mark. A few contrasting examples are discussed below for a clearer picture:


teddy bears Trademarks
teddy bears-2 Trademarks





Schuhwerk's red-tip shoelaces - Trademark



red label constitutes an integral part of the Levi's brand -Trademark




Christian Louboutin's red-soled high heels -Trademark



The aforementioned case studies only go on to prove how the topic of distinctiveness of a position Trademark is, more often than not, dependent on the discretion of judges and hence varies from one case to the other. It has been seen that courts are hesitant in accepting the possibility of 'acquired distinctiveness' of a position mark - however, that trend appears to be changing now. One of the longest legal battles based on position trademarks, which also sees the courts accepting the validity of the principle of 'acquired distinctiveness' is the case of Shoe Branding Europe BVBA v Adidas and OHIM.


This case is considered to be one of the landmark judgments in the sphere of unconventional trademarks and more specifically, of position trademarks. Adidas had filed an opposition against BVBA (a German shoe manufacturing company) claiming that the latter's trademark application for '2 stripe design', for footwear, (image 1) is 'confusingly similar' to Adidas' prior registered and well-known '3 stripe design' (image 2). Pictorial representations of the competing marks are as below:



Adidas Footwear - Trademarks


The opposition panel of OHIM eventually decided that the two marks can be distinguished based on the difference in inclination/ spaces between the stripes. However, Adidas appealed against this decision before the EU General Court, which thereafter opined that the three stripes widely used by Adidas had in fact acquired distinctiveness, and hence, BVBA's two stripe design would most definitely adversely impact Adidas' reputation. Continuing with the long string of appeals, BVBA appealed before the Court of Justice of the European Union, although in vain. BVBA was relentless and was determined to defeat Adidas to uphold their rights. Going forward, BVBA filed an independent suit before the EUIPO challenging the registrability of Adidas' 3 stripe mark, claiming that the same lacked distinctiveness and the characteristics of a source identifier. BVBA managed to win the case after all, wherein Adidas' 3 stripe mark was ruled to be an 'ordinary figurative mark' and not a distinctive pattern. Adidas was unable to establish that they had acquired distinctiveness across all the countries of the European Union, and hence, their registration of the 3 stripe mark was cancelled in 2019.


Although the concept of position trademark is well-established and still growing, it is still in its nascent stage in India. From the aforementioned cases we notice how the EUIPO has been able to explore multiple aspects of a position trademark and the legal ambit of unconventional trademarks is broadening with every passing case.