🧐 ProPicks AI October update is out now! See which stocks made the listPick Stocks with AI

U.S. court protects Adidas Stan Smith shoe from Skechers look-alike

Published 11/05/2018, 03:31 am
Updated 11/05/2018, 03:40 am
© Reuters.  U.S. court protects Adidas Stan Smith shoe from Skechers look-alike
ADSGN
-

By Jonathan Stempel

May 10 (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court on Thursday said Adidas AG ADSGn.DE can protect its famous Stan Smith tennis shoe against an alleged Skechers USA Inc SKX.N knockoff, but that Skechers could sell another shoe mimicking Adidas' familiar "three-stripe" design.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a preliminary injunction barring Skechers from selling its Onix shoe, which Adidas said looked too much like its white Stan Smith shoe, its all-time best-seller with more than 40 million pairs sold.

The court, which sat in Portland, Oregon, also reversed a similar injunction barring Skechers from selling its Cross Court shoe, which has three stripes on its side, finding no proof Adidas would suffer irreparable harm.

Neither company immediately responded to requests for comment.

The lawsuit is one of many by footwear makers seeking to protect their patent and trademark rights.

Many are filed by companies such as Adidas against companies such as Skechers whose products sell for lower prices.

Adidas has sued Skechers several times in the last two decades for alleged infringement of its three-stripe trademark.

Writing for a 3-0 panel, Circuit Judge Jacqueline Nguyen said the Stan Smith, named for the early 1970s American tennis star, has enjoyed "tremendous commercial success and market recognition," and Adidas might face irreparable harm if similar shoes flooded the market.

She also said evidence suggested that Skechers intended to confuse consumers by creating the "nearly identical" Onix, and then directing consumers who searched online for "adidas stan smith" to the Onix website.

By a 2-1 vote, however, the same panel said Adidas failed to show that consumers would associate it with Skechers' Cross Court, and dilute Adidas' reputation as a "premium" brand.

"Adidas did not set forth evidence probative of Skechers' allegedly less favorable reputation," Nguyen wrote.

Circuit Judge Richard Clifton would have upheld the entire injunction, which was issued in February 2016 by U.S. District Judge Marco Hernandez in Portland. The appeals court returned the case to Hernandez for further proceedings.

The case is Adidas America Inc et al v Skechers USA Inc, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 16-35204.

Latest comments

Risk Disclosure: Trading in financial instruments and/or cryptocurrencies involves high risks including the risk of losing some, or all, of your investment amount, and may not be suitable for all investors. Prices of cryptocurrencies are extremely volatile and may be affected by external factors such as financial, regulatory or political events. Trading on margin increases the financial risks.
Before deciding to trade in financial instrument or cryptocurrencies you should be fully informed of the risks and costs associated with trading the financial markets, carefully consider your investment objectives, level of experience, and risk appetite, and seek professional advice where needed.
Fusion Media would like to remind you that the data contained in this website is not necessarily real-time nor accurate. The data and prices on the website are not necessarily provided by any market or exchange, but may be provided by market makers, and so prices may not be accurate and may differ from the actual price at any given market, meaning prices are indicative and not appropriate for trading purposes. Fusion Media and any provider of the data contained in this website will not accept liability for any loss or damage as a result of your trading, or your reliance on the information contained within this website.
It is prohibited to use, store, reproduce, display, modify, transmit or distribute the data contained in this website without the explicit prior written permission of Fusion Media and/or the data provider. All intellectual property rights are reserved by the providers and/or the exchange providing the data contained in this website.
Fusion Media may be compensated by the advertisers that appear on the website, based on your interaction with the advertisements or advertisers.
© 2007-2024 - Fusion Media Limited. All Rights Reserved.