Nike settles Adidas trade secrets dispute
Nike has settled a trade secrets dispute in which it accused three ex-employees of passing on confidential information about a footwear design studio to its rival Adidas.
The dispute was settled on Friday (June 5). Exact details of the agreement have so far not been publicly disclosed.
Nike filed a lawsuit in December 2014 at the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the County of Multnomah, accusing three former footwear designers of passing on confidential plans for a design studio, called Innovation Kitchen, to rival sportswear brand Adidas.
Denis Dekovic, Marc Dolce and Mark Miner were accused of violating contractual agreements and sharing designs of Nike’s blueprints for its US studio.
Nike had requested $10 million in damages from the three former workers.
In April 2014, Nike claimed that the three were planning to leave and had set up their own design company. But in order to develop the venture, they allegedly sought the financial support of Adidas.
Between April and August that year, Nike claimed that the three shared the designs for the Innovation Kitchen with Adidas.
Nike said that Adidas’s resulting Brooklyn Creative Design Studio was “remarkably similar” to its own.
On September 22, all three officially left their positions at Nike.
Under Nike’s contractual agreements, employees are not allowed to join a competitor within one year of leaving the company.
But two days later, Adidas confirmed it would open its studio and that Dekovic, Dolce and Miner would take the lead on the project as consultants.
At the time, Adidas said the three would officially join the company in 2015.
Following the announcement, Dekovic, Dolce and Miner tweeted a picture of all of them using the hashtag ‘#TeamAdidas’.
A Nike spokesperson said in a statement: “Nike is an innovation company and we will continue to vigorously protect our intellectual property.”
Adidas declined to comment.
Simon Bennett, partner at law firm Fox Williams, said it was “unusual” that Adidas was not actually named in the lawsuit because usually the receiver of known trade secrets for commercial exploitation is considered liable.
But, he added, it is difficult to determine what a trade secret is because sometimes the idea is not written down or legally protected. And, Bennett said, once a company registers an idea for protection, the information is “out in the public domain and you lose that ability to prevent others from using those ideas”.
Dekovic, Dolce and Miner could not be reached for comment.
