In Sabel BV v. Puma AG, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) considered to what extent under European trademark law, as harmonized by Trade Mark Directive 89/104/EEC, a likelihood of association between two marks on the part of the public could prevent registration of a junior mark.

Article 4(1)(b) of the Directive, which has been incorporated into the laws of the member states and into the Community Trademark Regulation, prevents registration of a mark if "there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public which includes the likelihood of association with the earlier mark".

In this case, Puma, which had registered two variations of a mark consisting of a silhouette of a jumping puma and of a leaping puma, opposed Sabel's German application for registration of a mark consisting of a running feline. The German Patent Office held that there was no similarity between the marks. Puma appealed to the Federal Patent Court which held that there was a resemblance between the marks as well as similarity between the goods. Sabel then appealed to the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof), which stayed the proceedings to obtain a preliminary ruling by the ECJ concerning whether there was a likelihood of confusion between the two marks, and to determine the meaning of "likelihood of association".

The ECJ noted the possibility of dilution of a mark which can result from the subconscious association between two marks but held that "likelihood of association" is not an alternative factor to that of "likelihood of confusion". Instead, the former "serves to define [the] scope" of the latter. Therefore:

In the present case, Puma's marks were not especially well-known to the public, and possessed "little imaginative content". Therefore, notwithstanding a conceptual similarity, there was held to be little likelihood of confusion in the mind of the consumer.