Wednesday, 25 June 2008

Three Stripes? You're Out! Adidas Awarded $305 mil against Payless for Willful Infringement

An experienced trademark attorney can help you avoid the mistakes of those that have come before you.  Experienced trademark attorneys understand how to help businesses abide by the terms of settlement agreements, and what actions are likely to be found infringing in the aftermath of a negotiated settlement in a trademark dispute.  Failing to understand the mistakes of the past can be a costly misstep in trademark law, and in the case of Payless Shoes it proved to be a $305 million disaster. 

Payless Shoes, a large discount shoe retailer, was sued by Adidas in 1994 for infringing upon Adidas' popular three stripe mark and “superstar” trade dress, which consists of the three stripes, a flat sole, and the colored ankle tab bearing the Adidas logo.  Under the terms of the negotiated settlement, Payless was to discontinue the sale of any shoes bearing “three substantially straight parallel stripes on the side of the shoe running diagonally from the outsole forward to the lacing area,” or “two or four parallel double-serrated stripes of contrasting color running diagonally from the outsole forward to the lacing area.”  In return, Adidas agreed to release all future claims against Payless for the sale of shoes bearing two or four serrated stripe configurations. 

Adidas again filed suit in 2001 alleging that Payless had violated the settlement agreement by infringing upon their three stripe mark and trade dress.  Payless moved for summary judgement, arguing that their two and four-striped shoes had straight stripes and the settlement agreement only prohibited serrated stripes.  The summary judgement was granted and ultimately reversed by the 9th Circuit, and Adidas proceeded with its claims. 

Payless attempted to argue that their use of two or four stripes were not in violation of the settlement agreement.  In finding a likelihood of confusion between the two shoes at the summary judgement stage, the court stated:

This argument is not well taken. Although three stripes obviously do not equal four stripes, the issue is not simply the number of stripes. Instead, the issue is whether the total effect of the allegedly infringing design is likely to cause confusion in the minds of an ordinary purchaser. While there can be no debate that defendants' four stripe mark has one stripe more than adidas' Three Stripe Mark, so too there can be no debate that many of the other features of the stripes displayed on defendants' [shoes] are strikingly similar-if not identical-to the features of the Three Stripe Mark displayed on [adidas'] Superstar IIK and Campus II models.... The stripes are equal in size, are placed equidistant at a similar or identical angle, are in substantially the same location between the sole and the reinforced area which supports the shoelace holes (with the necessary adjustment to accommodate four rather than three stripes), are displayed in colors which contrast with the background color of the shoes, and have serrated edges. Thus, this court cannot simply count the number of stripes and determine as a matter of law that four stripes are not confusingly similar to three stripes.

It will be interesting to see whether the damages award is upheld.  Cases like this underscore the importance of having consistent oversight from counsel in these settlement issues.  As the Wall Street Journal noted, the $305 million award could even be increased because the court found willful infringement.  Judges can triple the damages award, here $137 million, when willful infringement is found.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the author has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign In.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Three Stripes? You're Out! Adidas Awarded $305 mil against Payless for Willful Infringement:

Official Trademark Clearinghouse Agent

Trademark Blog Homepage: Trademark Attorney, Lawyer: Trademark Registration & Trademark Infringement

Trademark Infringement: Cease & Desist Letter Help

  • Trademark Threats: 6 Reasons To Take Them Seriously
    Trademark attorney Enrico Schaefer explains what you should do when you receive a trademark cease and desist letter. Listen as he reviews 6 reasons why you should take any trademark threat letter seriously, and what you should do when you receive a cease and desist.
  • How to handle a trademark cease and desist letter?
    Trademark Attorney Brian Hall discusses what you should do when you receive a trademark cease and desist letter. What a trademark threat letter? Why trademark owners send trademark threat letters? What you should do when you receive a trademark infringement threat letter.

How to Trademark A Name?

  • How to Register a Trademark - USPTO
    You can establish rights in a mark based on legitimate use of the mark. However, owning a Federal trademark registration on the Principal Register provides several advantages ... here is how.
  • Types of U.S. Trademarks - USPTO
    Specific types of trademarks include: Service marks which identify and distinguish the source of a service rather than a product; Certification marks are used by someone other than its owner, to certify quality or other characteristics of such person's goods or services; Collective marks are trademarks or service marks used by the members of a collective group or organization.
  • Definition of a "Trademark"- USPTO
    A trademark includes any word, name, symbol, or design, or any combination used, or intended to be used, in commerce to identify and distinguish the goods of one manufacturer or seller from goods manufactured or sold by others, and to indicate the source of the goods. In short, a trademark is a brand name.
  • How To Copyright and Trademark a Catchphrase!
    Wondering how to trademark a catchphrase? You should also think about how to copyright a catchphrase. Some intellectual property can be protected by both a trademark and copyright registration.


Domain attorney recommended by
© 2011 Traverse Legal, PLC. All Rights Reserved.
Traverse Legal on LinkedInTraverse Legal on FacebookTraverse Legal on Twitter
Events & Conferences:
  • International Trademark Association 2011, San Francisco, California
  • Cyber Law Summit 2011, Las Vegas, Nevada
  • Game Developers Conference 2011, San Francisco, California
  • DOMAINfest 2011, Santa Monica, California
Recent Attorney Speaking Engagements:
  • South By Southwest 2010 SXSW Interactive Conference, Austin, Texas
  • West LegalEdcenter Midwestern Law Firm Management, Chicago, Illinois
  • Internet Advertising under Part 255, Altitude Design Summit, Salt Lake City, Utah
  • Online Defamation and Reputation Management, News Talk 650 AM, The Cory Kolt Show, Canada Public Radio Saskatewan Canada
  • Alternative Fee Structures, Center for Competitive Management, Jersey City, New Jersey
  • FTC Part 255 Advertising Requirements, Mom 2.0 Conference, Houston, Texas
  • Webmaster Radio, Cybersquatting & Domain Monetization, Fort Lauderdale, Florida
Notable Complex Litigation Cases Handled By Our Lawyers:
  • Trademark Infringement, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
  • Cybersquatting Law, Trademark Law and Dilution Detroit, Michigan
  • Internet Defamation & Online Libel Indianapolis, Indiana
  • Trade Secret Theft, Chicago, Illinois
  • Cybersquatting Law, Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act Miami, Florida
  • Cybersquatting Law, Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act Eastern Dist. of Virginia, Alexandria
  • Stolen Domain Name, Orlando, Florida
  • Commercial Litigation, Tampa, Florida
  • Copyright Infringement and Cybersquatting Law, Grand Rapids, Michigan
  • Mass Tort Litigation, Los Angeles, California
  • Stolen Domain Name, Detroit, Michigan
  • Adwords Keyword Trademark Infringement, Los Angeles, California
  • Trademark Infringement & Unfair Competition, Boston, Massachusetts
  • Non-Compete Agreement and Trade Secret Theft, Detroit, Michigan
  • Mass Tort, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
  • Mass Tort, Tyler, Texas
  • Insurance Indemnity, New York
  • Copyright Infringement, Detroit, Michigan