Need to Register?

Progeny · August 7th, 2008

Read about this the other day:

'German sportswear giant Adidas has won its legal battle regarding its distinctive ‘three stripes’ and can now prevent other manufacturers from using similar designs on their products.

The European Court of Justice ruled that “the mere fact that the relevant section of the public establishes a link between the two is sufficient”.
It follows a case brought by Adidas in Holland against C&A, H&M, Marca Mode and Vendex.

“They’re trying to distinguish a distinctive logo, such as the Nike swoosh, against a non-distinctive brand such as three stripes,” said Gary Assim, head of intellectual property at Shoosmiths Solicitors.

“But the three stripes have built up distinctiveness. Its reputation spans 70-odd years, so it’s difficult not to associate three stripes with Adidas.”

Adidas welcomed the ruling and stressed that it was not trying to prevent all use of stripes.

Anne Putz from the company released an email statement which read; “We do not seek to prevent the use of decoration, but the use of striped markings that confuse consumers, or cause them to make a link with our company.”

The court confirmed that what was important was whether consumers associated another company’s clothing with the Adidas brand, not how similar the designs looked.

The move disappointed C&A who were less than happy with the verdict. They argued that a “decorative motif” like stripes is so commonly used that there should be a limit to Adidas’s trademark rights.

“Stripes are used a lot on sports clothing to give it a speedy character and also on more formal clothing, such as suits,” said Daan de Lange, a lawyer working in Amsterdam for Brinkhof, which represented C&A. The company argued that competitors must be allowed to use such stripes in a decorative manner, he said.
“The decision is rather disappointing,” said de Lange. “It is absolutely more favorable to Adidas than to the two- stripe manufacturers,” he said, referring to C&A and Hennes & Mauritz, which were selling sports clothing with double stripes.

Apparently they will be able to stop other manufacturers using 2 stripes or 4 because it's too similar!

That's going to cause a bit of upset me thinks!

Jasonda · August 7th, 2008

Hilarious.

Solmu · August 7th, 2008

Hmm. Interesting.

Personally I think Adidas have carved out one specific form of decoration for themselves: three thin stripes on shoes, where the stripes don't take up all available space. That I have no problem with them having an exclusive trademark on. Anything else (any number of stripes that isn't three, or three fat stripes that take up the full side width, or something other than shoes) strikes me as fair game. From that article it's hard to tell what they've really been granted, and therefore how right/wrong the decision may be.

CUSTOM UK · August 8th, 2008

Didn't Sergeant Bilko have three stripes on his sleeve? Let's hope Adidas doesn't set their sights on his estate!

Stripes are indeed widely used on sporting apparel to give an illusion of speed. They used to be called 'go faster' stripes when put on cars. Will Adidas target the car customisers next?

Is it me, or does the business world seem to have gone mad somedays?

Progeny · August 8th, 2008

The Times also had an article that said the courts and solicitors are making up the minds of the public, as they are too 'stupid' to realise that any garment with stripes might be Adidas. There are loads of retailers that only sell their own stuff with stripes on, what they are saying is if they don't even sell Adidas clothing how can customers make that mistake!

We all too dum to know what's Adidas or not.

Jasonda · August 8th, 2008

It's very possible that this decision will be appealed. We shall see.

Robin · August 8th, 2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jasonda


	It's very possible that this decision will be appealed. We shall see.

I sure hope so!

brentonchad · August 8th, 2008

The same ruling was applied in the US Courts. Addidas won a big settlement against Payless Shoes for doing the same. The case was publiced pretty well here in Topeka since that is Payless Corp's home. Payless is now being sued by their insurance company for neglict as well since Payless filed an insurance claim to get the settlement paid. The damages awarded were around 137 million. Here's the verdict:
adidas payless verdict

Rodney · August 8th, 2008

Quote:


	Didn't Sergeant Bilko have three stripes on his sleeve? Let's hope Adidas doesn't set their sights on his estate!

Not sure if that was a joke or not, but I don't think it really applies to this case

Even if you're joking though, the problem is that people mistakenly believe that when a trademark owner is trying to protect their trademark, that they are also trying to claim rights to *everything* slightly related.

While this sometimes seems like the case, it's not always true.

Quote:


	Stripes are indeed widely used on sporting apparel to give an illusion of speed. They used to be called 'go faster' stripes when put on cars. Will Adidas target the car customisers next?

I don't think the article is saying that Addidas is trying to lay claim to all the stripes in the world.

However, as a trademark owner, they are required to actively enforce that trademark.

If you spent millions of dollars building up a brand, it makes sense that you would want to stop people from profiting unfairly from that brand you built.

We have questions here everyday where people ask "how do I protect my designs" or "how do I protect my brand". Unfortunately, this is how its done.

If you create something original and other people try to profit off of it, you will have to be one of "those guys" and try to use all means of protecting your original work, or you lose rights to it.

The post above didn't really show where the article stopped and where the commentary began, so part of the post is an assumption, and not really part of the court ruling or the intent of addidas.

CUSTOM UK · August 8th, 2008

The comment about Bilko was indeed a joke Rodney.

I wouldn't dismiss the comment about car customisers quite so lightly though. Someone here once had a compact vehicle that they put an old Rolls Royce radiator onto. Although it made everyone laugh, Rolls Royce still threatened them with court action.

Stripes on sporting apparel are almost universal here in Europe. Whilst I respect that corporations like to protect their trademarks, the Adidas logo in their own distictive typestyle is not the same thing as the three stripes being mentioned.

brentonchad · August 8th, 2008

There is a fine line in what they are trying to protect and what the verdict awarded. The above link has pictures of the shoes that were said to be conflicting. While most I will agree with, there are some that I don't believe would make me think of adidas at all. Pretty much anything with two, three or four solid stripes down the side was said to be conflicting.

Another intersesting case that was local to us was the University of Kansas versus Joe College. Joe College makes t-shirts based on sayings that relate to the KU Jayhawks and the university. Most of his designs are not family oriented. KU filed suit over that he was using the words KANSAS in a similiar manner as to what the college uses on it's officially logo'd items. While he had a few shirts that the jury said were conflicting the majority of shirts they said were ok. I think this has a lot of relevance in what you can and can't do with designs that relate to other trademarks.

KUsports.com - KU v. Joe-College.com Verdict

Rodney · August 8th, 2008

Quote:


	Someone here once had a compact vehicle that they put an old Rolls Royce radiator onto. Although it made everyone laugh, Rolls Royce still threatened them with court action.

That's something totally different though. I don't know the specifics of the case, but I do know that Rolls Royce is a car manufacturer, so doing something that they felt might confuse "car" customers makes sense.

That's car brand defending car brand. Not shoe brand defending car brand

Not saying the Rolls Royce case was right or wrong (I don't know it), but it was at least relevant to the same industry.

CUSTOM UK · August 8th, 2008

Te relevance to vehicles, is that many people who use their vinyl cutters for producing tees, also use them for creating vehicle graphics as well.

If a company uses their financial backing to lay claim to a simple geometric shape such as stripes on a shoe, that creates a precadent that can have far reaching implications for all of us in the design industry. I was wearing baseball boots thirty years ago that have the same stripe pattern that Adidas is now attempting to claim legal right to.

Progeny · August 9th, 2008

Rodney- 'The post above didn't really show where the article stopped and where the commentary began, so part of the post is an assumption, and not really part of the court ruling or the intent of addidas.'

I just added the last two lines. It was an article i found on Google.

Other articles are here,

Adidas earns its stripes in court - International Herald Tribune
EU court to rule on use of 'Adidas stripes' - Telegraph
BBC NEWS | Business | Adidas earns its stripes in court

Lee

ambitious · August 9th, 2008

Ridiculous!!

Need to Register?

Resources

T-Shirt Sites

Adidas wins 3 stripes court battle