Skechers and Adidas settle three-stripe trademark dispute
Footwear brand Skechers has asked a US court to dismiss a trademark infringement suit over one of its shoe styles which Adidas had claimed infringes its three-stripe trademark.
In a filing on July 29 at the US District Court for the Central District of California, Skechers did not disclose any details of a settlement between the two parties but asked the court to dismiss the action without prejudice.
The settlement comes five months after Skechers filed a complaint with the court in February, asking for a declaratory judgment that its Goldie-Peaks shoe does not infringe Adidas’ trademark.
According to Skecher’s original filing, Adidas had sent the brand two cease and desist letters, demanding that Skechers cease all manufacturing, distribution, advertisement and sales of the shoe.
As reported by WIPR, the cease and desist letters were allegedly sent in November and December 2018.
Adidas claimed that the shoe infringes and dilutes its famous three-stripe trademark.
In its argument to the court, Skechers claimed the accusations are “baseless” and said consumers are unlikely to be confused into believing the Goldie-Peaks shoe is associated with Adidas.
According to Skechers’ filing, Adidas demanded that Skechers provide sales data for the Goldie-Peaks shoe so that Adidas could “fashion an appropriate monetary demand”.
Skechers argued Adidas “operates in a crowded field of stripe designs”, and therefore its three-stripe mark is entitled to only narrow protection.
It gave examples of 24 footwear styles, released by brands including Gucci, Marc Jacobs, Tommy Hilfiger, Paul Smith, Miu Miu and Tory Burch which feature a panel of contrasting segments.
The settlement comes not long after the EU General Court upheld a decision in June that Adidas’ three-stripe trademark is invalid.
The court ruled that the trademark, which consists of three parallel equidistant stripes of identical width, applied on a product in any direction, is “extremely simple”.
Adidas had tried to argue that the trademark was not a figurative mark, but a pattern mark.
But the court said it was not apparent from the description of the mark that it is composed of a series of regularly repetitive elements.
Additionally, it said Adidas had failed to show that the mark had acquired distinctive character throughout the European Union.
Did you enjoy reading this story? Sign up to our free daily newsletters and get stories like this sent straight to your inbox.
Today's top stories:
Disney enforces controversial ‘Hakuna Matata’ TM
