As reported by Independent, Formula 1 is racing towards a legal battle regarding its recently launched logo.
In November of 2017, Formula 1 replaced its long-standing and iconic logo with a more simple design tailored for the digital age.

Not only did the change illicit significant criticism from the racing community, it also caught the attention of 3M, as the logo resembles the logo of Futuro – a 3M sub-brand that produces compression clothing.

3M opposed Formula 1’s trademark application before the European Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). The records reveal that 3M registered a pan-European trademark for the Futuro logo in June of 2017. Given that Formula 1 only applied for its new logo in November of 2017, it would seem 3M has precedence.
The legal dispute will hinge on whether or not it can be proven that there is a likelihood of confusion between the two brands. Of interest is Formula 1’s exclusion of therapeutic clothing, which is the industry in respect of which 3M’s mark is registered.
Formula 1’s head on collision with 3M could be alleviated through a negotiated settlement. However, Formula 1 may be forced to pay a steep price if it wishes to remain in control of its already controversial logo.
Combined with the recent announcement of the retirement of all-time great driver, Fernando Alonso, these are challenging times for Formula 1.
Given the existence of the Canadian Grand Prix (held in Montreal each year in June), Formula 1 has unsurprisingly also sought to trademark its new logo in Canada (see: application #1868570, 1868575, 1868576 and 1868569).
Authors: Jordan D. Scopa and Steve Inglis
Photo Credit: https://unsplash.com/@isaacmaffeis
Authors
Expertise
Insights
-
Intellectual Property Litigation
Trademarks Opposition Board Moves to Digital-Only Submission of Confidential Information
As of June 1, 2026, the Trademarks Opposition Board (TMOB) requires all confidential evidence and documentation in proceedings under sections 11.13, 38, or 45 of the Trademarks Act (the “Act”) to be… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
Kansas City Chiefs Stars Sued for Trademark Infringement Over Steakhouse
The sneaker company, 1587 Sneakers, is reportedly suing Kansas City Chiefs players, Patrick Mahomes and Travis Kelce, along with their restaurant partners, for trademark infringement.1587 Sneakers… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
A Pecking Order Problem: Pudgy Penguins Faces Penguin Trademark Lawsuit
As reported by Bloomberg Law News, PEI Licensing (“PEI”), the owner of the Penguin apparel brand, has sued Pudgy Penguins NFT (“Pudgy Penguins”) for trademark infringement.Pudgy Penguins started as a… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
Old Brand, New Problems? Nike’s Attempt to Revive “Total 90” Soccer Cleats
Nike is reportedly attempting to revive its classic “Total 90” soccer cleat line, but has encountered an unexpected setback. Total90, LLC has reportedly asserted that Nike is infringing its… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
A Swing and a Miss: The “All Rise” Trademark Attempt
As reported by Bloomberg, attempts to register marks covering the phrases “All Rise” and “Here Comes the Judge” were rejected by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
Hershey’s Kisses Go to Court – Federal Court of Appeal Decision in PIM Brands Inc. v. Hershey Chocolate & Confectionery LLC
The Federal Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Promotion in Motion, Inc. (PIM Brands, Inc.) v. Hershey Chocolate & Confectionery LLC offers fresh guidance on how courts evaluate survey evidence…