In a homogeneous competitive environment, where products or services are often indistinguishable and prices are easily comparable, a brand becomes one of the most powerful differentiators. It is not just a nice logo or emotional advertising—it is a complex set of perceptions, experiences, and associations that customers connect with your company.
The importance of a brand is also demonstrated by the protection of renowned trademarks such as PUMA. Legal disputes show that reputation can be a company’s most valuable asset, but also a source of significant challenges.
The Essence of a Strong Brand: What Makes It Trustworthy and Memorable
For a brand to truly function as a competitive advantage, it must be:
- clearly identifiable, trustworthy, and consistent, which requires effort, cost, and time on the part of the owner (e.g. building a strong trademark portfolio and protecting it),
- capable of evoking emotion even before the first contact with the product,
- built on what customers say about you—not only in advertisements, but in discussions and shared experiences.
A strong brand is created when it:
- maintains consistent quality—customers know exactly what to expect,
- communicates a clear story, mission, and values,
- creates positive associations—success, innovation, lifestyle, etc.
Branding as a Competitive Advantage: 4 Reasons Why Investing in a Brand Pays Off
- Greater price resilience – Apple can charge premium prices because its brand delivers value, not just a product.
- More effective marketing – a well-known brand does not need to persuade customers from scratch.
- Customer loyalty – loyalty grows out of trust, even when strong competition emerges.
- Easier portfolio expansion – brands such as Nike or PUMA open doors to new categories (e.g. from footwear to apparel).
Behind every strong brand stands a strong brand and enforcement team. Their role is not only to register rights, but also to monitor and protect them worldwide—in cooperation with state institutions (police, customs authorities, courts). Through continuous work, market presence, and awareness activities (such as training public-sector employees), it is possible to build a brand with a strong reputation and good name.
Puma vs. Adidas: An Iconic Rivalry That Defined Sports Branding
The story of Puma and Adidas is a unique example of how a family conflict grew into a business rivalry that shaped sports marketing, brand building, and the understanding of intellectual property. For companies, it is a textbook case of how conflict and competition can accelerate innovation and strengthen brand identity. This article presents a case study that connects historical facts with modern experience and shows what today’s entrepreneurs, young innovators, and start-ups can learn from it.
The Dassler brothers, Rudolf and Adolf (Adi), began producing sports footwear in the 1920s in their family company, Gebrüder Dassler Schuhfabrik. Global success came as early as 1936, when Jesse Owens won four gold medals at the Berlin Olympics wearing their shoes. After World War II, however, the brothers fell out and split: Adi founded Adidas, Rudolf founded Puma.
Brand Identity as a Competitive Weapon: The Adidas and Puma Case
- Adidas built its identity around the three stripes.
- Puma relied on the “leaping cat” logo and technological innovation.
- Both brands have been involved in disputes over design, patents, and marketing slogans since the 1950s.
- This battle showed that brand value lies not only in products, but also in the visual and legal protection of identity.
Logo, design, and marketing identity are not “extras” but assets that must be legally protected and developed over the long term.
Emotions and Storytelling in Marketing: Symbolic Moments That Shaped Brands
- 1954 – “The Miracle of Bern”: the German national football team won the World Cup wearing Adidas boots—giving Adidas enormous marketing capital.
- 1970 – Pelé’s moment: Puma signed Pelé, who tied his Puma boots on the pitch before a World Cup match—an iconic example of product placement.
- These moments showed that sport and marketing can create an indelible connection between a brand and fans’ emotions.
Strong brands are not born only in factories, but also on playing fields, in the media, and in the minds of fans. Connecting products with emotions is the most powerful marketing tool.
Intellectual Property Protection in Practice: Court Disputes
The rivalry between Adidas and Puma laid the foundation for the modern understanding of brand, design, and patent protection. Today, both companies engage in disputes with competitors worldwide to maintain leadership and market position.
Dispute No. 1: Puma vs. Sun Day Red (Tiger Woods) – The Tiger Logo Under Scrutiny
In 2024, Puma filed an opposition against the logo of Sun Day Red, a brand founded by Tiger Woods in cooperation with TaylorMade. According to Puma, the tiger logo too closely resembles its iconic “Leaping Cat” logo. Puma argued that both symbols depict predatory animals in motion and operate in the same segment—sportswear and footwear—creating a risk of consumer confusion and weakening Puma’s brand identity.
Sun Day Red’s legal representatives countered that the tiger logo differs in style, graphic execution, and symbolism, and therefore there is no likelihood of confusion.
The dispute is ongoing and may set a precedent for how similarity between animal motifs in logos is assessed.
Dispute No. 2: Puma vs. Brooks Sports – The “Nitro” Trademark in Court
This dispute concerned designs and trademarks related to running shoe technologies. The core issue was the use of the name “Nitro,” which Puma has used since 2021 for its cushioning technology. Brooks Sports began marketing running shoes using the same designation.
Puma claimed trademark infringement and misuse that could weaken its unique marketing communication and market reputation. The dispute was heard in U.S. federal courts, and although both sides initially prepared for extensive litigation, they ultimately reached an out-of-court settlement.
Dispute No. 3: Puma vs. Van Hilst BV – Disclosure of a Design Before Registration
The General Court of the European Union (Case T-647/22) ruled that one of Puma’s designs (registered as an EU Community design) was invalid.
The reason was that Puma itself had disclosed images of the design on social media (Instagram) before official registration. The applicant referred, among other things, to three Instagram posts dated 16 December 2014, each with over 300,000 likes, taken from the account “badgalriri,” announcing that Robyn Rihanna Fenty (“Rihanna”) had been appointed Puma’s new creative director and showing her wearing white shoes with thick black soles.
Under European law, a design must be “new” and have “individual character” to be protected. By disclosing the product before registration, these conditions could not be met, leading to invalidation of the design.
This decision serves as a warning to innovators and manufacturers to align marketing presentation with intellectual
property protection strategies in advance.
Dispute No. 4: Puma vs. Fujian Daocheng – Individual Character of a Design Before the EU Court
Puma challenged a design registered by the Chinese company Fujian Daocheng Electronic Commerce Co., arguing that it lacked individual character and was too similar to Puma’s designs.
The General Court examined whether earlier designs had been sufficiently disclosed and identified the informed user as a highly attentive consumer who regularly purchases footwear. It also assessed the designer’s freedom, finding it relatively high. Comparing the designs as a whole, the Court found significant differences in decoration, sole structure, and upper features, resulting in a different overall impression.
Puma relied primarily on comparisons of the soles, but the Court emphasized that overall impression must be based on the entire design, not individual parts. As a result, the Court dismissed Puma’s action and confirmed that the contested design had individual character.
This case highlights the complexity of international disputes and differing perceptions of design originality across jurisdictions.
Lessons from Practice
These cases show that:
- even visual similarities in logos can lead to serious legal disputes,
- the use of technological names (such as “Nitro”) requires a robust trademark strategy,
- premature disclosure of a design can jeopardize legal protection,
- international disputes depend on detailed argumentation and differences between legal systems.
Investment in patents, trademarks, and designs is just as important as investment in production or marketing. Intellectual property protection ensures that brand value remains with its creator.
Examples of Strong Global Brands: What Makes Apple, Tesla, Starbucks, and Nike Exceptional?
- Apple: builds a premium image through technology, design, ecosystem, and strong protection of design rights—allowing premium pricing.
- Tesla: synonymous with innovation and sustainability; even with similar competing technologies, the Tesla name carries weight with customers and investors.
- Starbucks: sells not just coffee, but a “coffeehouse experience,” enabling global expansion and resilience against local competition.
- Nike: like Puma and Adidas, shows how combining sport, emotion, and iconic personalities (Michael Jordan, Serena Williams) creates a brand that transcends the product itself.
Five Key Takeaways for Companies: How to Build and Protect a Strong Brand
- Design and logo are assets—brand protection directly impacts value.
- Innovations must be protected by patents and designs—technical solutions become marketing advantages.
- Marketing identity is about stories—sports icons and symbolic moments are powerful brand-building tools.
- Rivalry can drive growth—competition fuels innovation and resilience.
- Practical examples show universality—across sports, technology, or coffee, a brand is capital.
Conclusion: Brand Building Requires Strategy and Legal Protection
The Puma vs. Adidas story is not just a family drama—it is a chapter in the history of branding and intellectual property. It shows that protecting logos, designs, and patents is not a formality, but a key element of long-term value creation.
For today’s companies, the message is clear: a brand is not just a product, but a complex identity that must be continuously protected and strategically developed. Regardless of industry—from technology and automotive to fashion and coffee—the brand is the tool that turns a product into a story and a story into trust.
If you want your brand to succeed in a competitive environment, gain customer trust, and withstand legal challenges, you need not only creatives but also experienced intellectual property lawyers. A well-designed protection strategy for logos, designs, names, and technologies can be the difference between growth and loss of value.
Let this article be both inspiration and a call to action. Connect with intellectual property experts and build a globally impactful brand with not only a strong story, but also solid legal protection.