Supreme has succeeded in a recent trademark opposition before the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), securing a full rejection of a rival application that bore similarities to its well-known branding. On 8 April 2025, the EUIPO’s Opposition Division ruled in favour of Chapter 4 Corp., the owner of the Supreme brand, in a case brought against an application filed by Baier Gaode (Ningbo) Brand Management Co., Ltd. The contested sign, Supins, was considered likely to create a link with the earlier Supreme mark and to result in an unfair advantage being taken of its distinctive character and reputation within the European Union.
Supreme: A Brand in Brief
Supreme was founded in New York City and is operated by Chapter 4 Corp. It began as a skateboarding and streetwear label but has since grown into one of the most influential lifestyle brands in global fashion. Its name, visual identity and stylised red and white logo have become culturally iconic. Supreme is widely recognised not only for its minimalist yet distinctive branding but also for its unique market approach, which includes limited product releases, long queues outside flagship stores and extensive collaborations with other high-profile brands.
Over the years, Supreme has partnered with companies such as Louis Vuitton, Nike and The North Face, and has expanded its product portfolio well beyond apparel. Items have included accessories, tools, kitchen goods, skate decks and even items as unusual as fire extinguishers and bolt cutters. This deliberate and often unconventional expansion strategy has significantly enhanced the brand’s reputation and recognisability across various market segments.
Supreme holds multiple European Union Trade Marks (EUTMs), including registration No. 16815763, which features the familiar white italic wordmark set against a red rectangular background. This mark, along with others, formed the basis for the opposition in the present case.
A selection of earlier signs and branding elements used by Supreme, including registered trade marks and non-registered variations such as “Sup”, “Supre”, and stylised forms shown on various goods.
Overview of the Dispute
The contested mark, filed by Baier Gaode in May 2021, was a figurative sign reading “Supins”. The application sought protection across a wide array of goods in Classes 7, 8, 10, 11 and 21. These classes include household appliances, personal grooming tools, medical devices and kitchenware. Notably, these goods differ in nature from the apparel and accessories typically associated with Supreme.
Supreme opposed the application under Article 8(5) of the EUTM Regulation. This provision protects marks that possess a reputation in the European Union against later registrations that may take unfair advantage of or cause harm to that reputation. Supreme asserted that the contested mark was similar enough in appearance and sound to create a mental association with its own, thus enabling the applicant to benefit from its brand equity without due cause.
Assessment of Similarities
The EUIPO conducted a standard triadic assessment: visual, aural, and conceptual comparison. It determined that both marks begin with the string “Sup,” a factor of significance given consumers’ tendency to focus on the beginning of signs. The font style, while not overly distinctive in itself, was also noted to be highly similar. The differences in suffix (“-reme” vs “-ins”) and colour scheme were insufficient to dispel the overall impression of resemblance.
Aurally, the marks were similar to a below-average degree, sharing an identical initial syllable. Conceptually, for part of the public, “Sup” might evoke connotations of superiority, given its Latin origin (“supra”) and frequent use in colloquial English. This semantic proximity, in combination with visual similarities, was found sufficient to support the likelihood of consumers establishing a link between the marks.
Reputation and the Link Criterion
Central to the decision was whether consumers would associate the contested sign with the reputed Supreme mark. The EUIPO concluded that such a mental link was likely, based on:
Supreme’s extensive and well-documented use across a wide range of goods, including non-traditional product categories;
Its consistent strategy of co-branding with well-known global companies;
The market’s receptiveness to lifestyle branding extending into diverse product segments.
While the contested goods did not directly overlap with Supreme’s registered categories, the Office found that the mark’s expansion into unusual and varied goods (e.g., tea sets, tools, coffee makers) had accustomed the public to seeing “Supreme” branding outside its original domain.
Findings on Unfair Advantage
The EUIPO agreed with the opponent’s position that use of “Supins” would allow the applicant to benefit unduly from Supreme’s brand recognition and consumer goodwill. The applicant presented no arguments or evidence to counter the presumption of unfair advantage, nor any indication of due cause for adopting a similar mark. The Opposition Division found that the contested sign would likely misappropriate the reputation and attractive power of the Supreme brand, creating an economic advantage for the applicant without corresponding investment.
Outcome of the Proceedings
Supreme prevailed in its opposition against the trade mark application for Supins. The EUIPO found that the use of Supins would take unfair advantage of the distinctive character or the reputation of the earlier Supreme mark, within the scope of Article 8(5) of the EUTM Regulation. As a result, the application for Supins was rejected in its entirety.
The applicant was ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings, which were set at 620 euros. Since the opposition was successful on this ground alone, the EUIPO did not assess the claims based on unregistered rights or examine the remaining earlier marks submitted by Supreme.
Conclusion and Implications
This decision reflects how EU trade mark law provides effective protection for marks with a proven reputation, even in situations where the goods in question are not similar. The decision confirms that where a sign is likely to create a link with an earlier reputed mark, and where that link may result in an unfair commercial benefit to the applicant, the application can be refused regardless of product category.
For businesses, the case highlights the importance of maintaining clear evidence of brand use and recognition, especially when marks are extended across various types of goods. It also shows the benefit of acting early when similar signs appear on the register, particularly when there is potential for reputational advantage to be taken.
Supreme’s successful opposition illustrates how reputation, when supported by consistent use and visibility in the market, can provide a solid basis for preventing unauthorised associations and preserving the commercial value of a mark.
