• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Contact form
Patentanwaltskanzlei

Patentanwaltskanzlei

  • Deutsch

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email
MENUMENU
  • Services
    • Advice On Protective IP Rights
    • Patent Application /TM Registration
    • Enforcement Of IP Rights
    • Defence Against IP Rights Enforcement
    • Costs
  • Company
    • Fields of Law
      • Patent Law
      • Utility Model Law
      • Employees‘ Inventions
      • Trademark Law
      • Design Law
      • Trademark and Product Piracy
      • Expert Opinions
    • Our Law Firm
      • Dr. Tim Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Klaus Zimmermann
      • Zhichao Ying
      • Walter Benjamin Feldheim
    • Commitment
  • Contact
    • Where To Find Us
    • Write us!
    • Request call back
  • Blog

Partial success for adidas before U.S. Court of Appeals

15. May 2018

Is there a risk of confusion between the adidas sneaker Stan Smith and the Skechers Onix sneaker? And does Skechers’ Cross Fit shoe water down the adidas brand? The U.S. Court of Appeals of Oregon says yes and no. The current decision represents an important partial success for the German premium manufacturer.

Dispute about the famous Stan Smith shoe

adidas SneakerThe adidas Stan Smith shoe in question is considered one of the most important or influential sneakers of all time. Known and successful since the 1970s, and repeatedly honored by designers and major fashion magazines, Stan Smith has also received industry awards such as “Shoe of the Year” in Footwear News 2014.

Stan Smith Shoe versus Skecher's OnixThe “considerable risk of confusion” between the Stan Smith and the Skecher’s Onix sneaker was confirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the district of Oregon. The judgements in the cases ADIDAS AMERICA, INC, ADIDAS AG, and ADIDAS INTERNATIONAL MARKETING B.V., v. SKECHERS USA, INC.(16-35204) were delivered last Thursday. Sketchers denies only two of the factors adidas has put forward: a probability of success and irreparable damage. Because adidas has built a special reputation around the Stan Smith, competitor Sketcher argued, confirming the strong brand position of the Stan Smith shoe model. The success of the adidas sneaker is therefore not to be jeopardised and irreparable damage is therefore ruled out. However, the court did not want to agree with these arguments: an irreparable damage could not be ruled out, the preliminary decision states.

No likelihood of confusion by Skecher’s Cross Court shoe

Skecher's Relaxed Fit Cross Court Schuh
Skecher’s Relaxed Fit Cross Court Schuh

However, the court ruled otherwise on the likelihood of confusion between Skecher’s Relaxed Fit Cross Court shoe and the so-called adidas Trade Dress Claim, which includes the famous 3 stripes that adidas also defends in other trademark infringement proceedings – we reported (March 2018: Free rider- Adidas successfully with its three striped shoes). Because adidas failed to argue on appeal “that a cross court buyer would falsely believe that he bought adidas shoes at the time of the sale,” the court ruled.

Adidas argued that a cross-court shoe would be confused with an adidas shoe from a distance because the Skecher logo could not be seen from a distance. However, the court did not support this assumption. Adidas had provided no evidence that it was suffering irreparable damage from the Cross Court shoe. Such damage would occur if there were evidence of confusion between Skecher’s inferior lower-end shoes and adidas shoes, as cross-court shoes would damage adidas’ reputation and reputation as a premium footwear brand. However, if a consumer looks at a shoe from such a distance that he cannot see the Skechers logos, it is unlikely that he can adequately assess the quality of the shoes.

Partial success for adidas

The United States Court of Appeals therefore ruled both for and against adidias: an injunction against Skecher prohibits the further manufacture and distribution of Onix sneakers. The District Court also issued a preliminary injunction against the distribution of the Cross Court shoe, but the court annulled this injunction in its current decision. Skecher can still sell his Cross Court shoe for the time being.

Are you interested in brand or trade mark protection?

Please take your chance and contact us. Our lawyers are experienced in trademark and patent law, national and international law.

 

 

 

Sources:

US Courts Datastore: 16-35204

Pictures:

Skecher models from the judgment of U.S. Courts Datastore: 16-35204

metaliza01 /pixabay.com / CCO License  

 

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 

Category iconDesign Law,  Trademark Law Tag iconadidas,  brand,  brand protection,  confusion,  Cross Court,  likelihood of confusion,  Onix sneaker,  Stan Smith,  Stan Smith shoe,  U. S. Court of Appeals,  U.S.

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

More articles about: Design Law

All articles

Blog Menu

  • Design Law
  • Healthcare & Lifesciences
  • International Intellectual Property
  • Licenses
  • News from our law firm
  • Overall
  • Patent Law
  • Product- and Trademark piracy
  • Trademark Law

Recent Posts

  • What is the public allowed to know? 3. June 2024
  • BPatG: Patent claim of cancer drug on active substance as salt 7. March 2022
  • Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022 4. March 2022
  • CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks? 25. February 2022

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Das könnte Sie auch interessieren:

3. June 2024
What is the public allowed to know?

What is the public allowed to know?

4. March 2022
Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

25. February 2022
CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks?

CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks?

24. February 2022
EOS lip balm no 3D trademark – appeal before ECJ not admissible

EOS lip balm no 3D trademark – appeal before ECJ not admissible

21. February 2022
CFI: Pumpkin seed oil + PGI symbol

CFI: Pumpkin seed oil + PGI symbol

17. February 2022
China joins the Hague Agreement

China joins the Hague Agreement

Contact us or request a call back

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Request a call back

Footer

Contact

Hanauer Landstrasse 287
D – 60314 Frankfurt am Main
Deutschland
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 199
[email protected]

Office Hours
Moday – Friday:   08:00-18:00

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Law Firm

  • Request non-binding call back
  • Company
  • Our Law Firm
  • ISO Certificate
  • Privacy Policy
  • Data handling for clients
  • Imprint

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email

Newsletter Signup

Newsletter INT

© Meyer-Dulheuer MD Legal Patentanwälte PartG

Contact Form

 

Give us a call, send us an email or fill out the contact form.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

Rückruf INT

Please note: If we deal specifically with your individual case, this is what is known as an initial consultation. In accordance with Section 34 of the Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz, this incurs one-off costs of 190 euros plus MwSt. We will be happy to assist you in a personal consultation after our telephone call.

Kontaktformular

 

Rufen Sie uns an, schicken Sie uns eine Mail oder füllen Sie das Kontaktformular aus.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

Rückruf

Um dieses Angebot nutzen zu können, müssen Sie der Speicherung Ihrer personenbezogenen Daten zustimmen. Wir behandeln diese streng vertraulich und verwenden sie nur zur Kontaktaufnahme mit Ihnen. Mehr dazu lesen Sie in unserer Datenschutzerklärung.

Bitte beachten Sie: Wenn wir uns konkret mit Ihrem Einzelfall befassen, ist dies eine sogenannte Erstberatung. Für eine solche entstehen gemäß § 34 Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz einmalige Kosten in Höhe von 190 Euro plus MwSt. Gerne helfen wir Ihnen im Anschluss an unser Telefonat in einem persönlichen Beratungsgespräch weiter.