After almost seven years since inception, the lawsuit by adidas America, Inc. and adidas-Solomon AG ('adidas') against Payless ShoeSource, Inc. ('Payless') ended at the trial level with a jury verdict against Payless in the amount of $305 million. Payless was found guilty of willful federal trademark and trade dress infringement, trademark and trade dress dilution, and state-law unfair and deceptive trade practices as a result of its sale of footwear bearing confusingly similar imitations of adidas's famous Three-Stripe Mark and Superstar Trade Dress.
Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Intellectual Property StrategistKickerFeaturesTopicsCommercial LawTechnology Media and TelecomSectionsNewsLJN Newsletters
<i>adidas v. Payless</i>
After almost seven years since inception, the lawsuit by adidas against Payless ShoeSource, Inc. ended at the trial level with a jury verdict against Payless in the amount of $305 million. Payless was found guilty of willful federal trademark and trade dress infringement, trademark and trade dress dilution, and state-law unfair and deceptive trade practices as a result of its sale of footwear bearing confusingly similar imitations of adidas's famous Three-Stripe Mark and Superstar Trade Dress.
On Nov. 8, 2001, adidas filed its Original Complaint, accusing Payless of selling two- and four-stripe confusingly similar imitations of adidas's three-stripe shoes, including its classic Superstar design, as well as other popular adidas shoes such as the Prajna, Mei, Copa Mundial, Campus, Samoa, Stan Smith, Tuscany/adi Racer, and Country Ripple. Between 2001 and the verdict in 2008, Payless continued to introduce new, similar footwear models that adidas would accuse of infringement throughout the pendency of the litigation. In all, 267 Payless lots were accused, of which the jury found all but one to infringe and dilute adidas's trademark and trade dress interests.
A Brief History
A brief recap of the history of the parties' dispute ' that dates back to a prior action between the parties in the 1990s, when adidas first
Read These Next
The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
Marketing Analytics: More Is Not Always Best
In the past few decades, law firms have made great strides in catching up with the rest of the corporate world and are reaping the benefits of all kinds of marketing. This acceptance by firm management is in great part due to an increased appreciation of analytics, made possible by digital marketing and social media.
Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.