Adidas Battle Against its “Three Stripe Mark”
Background
Around 2005, the Browne brand sold a three-striped design, known as the “Three-Bar Signature.” Adidas contacted the brand and they agreed to stop using it. Following that, in 2008 and 2009, the “Four-Bar Signature” appearance became available. Thom Browne’s usage of the striped design was likely to cause consumer misunderstanding and deceive the public.
- Adidas launched a trademark opposition proceeding in 2018 for a striped mark filed by Thom Browne in the European Union.
- In December 2020, Adidas filed opposition urging the trademark body to halt three pending trademark applications for red, white, and blue stripe trademarks for use by Thom Browne.
- In 2021, Adidas sued Thom Browne’s company, alleging infringement on its three-stripe trademark. Despite all the allegations, Thom Browne continuously stated that there is no confusion between its usage of four horizontal parallel bands and Adidas three stripes.
Legal Issues Involved in the Case
In the instant case, Adidas asserted 2 claims i.e. a claim of trademark infringement and a claim of trademark dilution by the defendant Thom Browne.
Trademark Infringement Claim
Adidas accused Thom Browne of infringing its “Three Stripe Mark” through the use of two branding designs called the “Four Bar” and “Grosgrain” designs and stated that its products are likely to cause public confusion and deceive the public into thinking that the products are made, sold or otherwise associated/sponsored by Adidas. Thom Browne argued that Adidas exercised unreasonable delay in asserting its claims. “Four-Bar Signature” was first sold in 2009 and was displayed on items of activewear at the fashion brand’s flagship New York store from 2010. However, Adidas claimed that it only became aware of the infringement in early 2018, when Thom Browne applied to trademark the “Grosgrain Signature”.
Trademark Dilution Claim
Adidas contended that there has been a “trademark dilution” of its distinctive Mark. Thom Browne refuted the claims stating that both brands have separate identities and no rights are infringed.
Conclusion
This judgment gives a blow to Adidas monopoly over the “three-stripe” mark and will affect other countries, especially India. Adidas was unsatisfied with the verdict and will continue to vigilantly enforce its IP rights following due process of law including filing appeals. This decision has opened a pandora of debates for well-known marks and the degree of their identifiability. Hence this verdict will attract more trademark litigation cases in India.
Amul Strikes Back: Court Defends Iconic Trademark Against ‘Amuleti’ Infringement
Changing Trends in Trademark Enforcement Rights
Copyright Infringement – Section 63, A Cognizable and Non-Bailable Offence
Draft geographical Indications of Goods(Registration and Protection) (Amendment) Rules, 2023
Adidas Battle Against its “Three Stripe Mark”
Background
Around 2005, the Browne brand sold a three-striped design, known as the “Three-Bar Signature.” Adidas contacted the brand and they agreed to stop using it. Following that, in 2008 and 2009, the “Four-Bar Signature” appearance became available. Thom Browne’s usage of the striped design was likely to cause consumer misunderstanding and deceive the public.
- Adidas launched a trademark opposition proceeding in 2018 for a striped mark filed by Thom Browne in the European Union.
- In December 2020, Adidas filed opposition urging the trademark body to halt three pending trademark applications for red, white, and blue stripe trademarks for use by Thom Browne.
- In 2021, Adidas sued Thom Browne’s company, alleging infringement on its three-stripe trademark. Despite all the allegations, Thom Browne continuously stated that there is no confusion between its usage of four horizontal parallel bands and Adidas three stripes.
Legal Issues Involved in the Case
In the instant case, Adidas asserted 2 claims i.e. a claim of trademark infringement and a claim of trademark dilution by the defendant Thom Browne.
Trademark Infringement Claim
Adidas accused Thom Browne of infringing its “Three Stripe Mark” through the use of two branding designs called the “Four Bar” and “Grosgrain” designs and stated that its products are likely to cause public confusion and deceive the public into thinking that the products are made, sold or otherwise associated/sponsored by Adidas. Thom Browne argued that Adidas exercised unreasonable delay in asserting its claims. “Four-Bar Signature” was first sold in 2009 and was displayed on items of activewear at the fashion brand’s flagship New York store from 2010. However, Adidas claimed that it only became aware of the infringement in early 2018, when Thom Browne applied to trademark the “Grosgrain Signature”.
Trademark Dilution Claim
Adidas contended that there has been a “trademark dilution” of its distinctive Mark. Thom Browne refuted the claims stating that both brands have separate identities and no rights are infringed.
Conclusion
This judgment gives a blow to Adidas monopoly over the “three-stripe” mark and will affect other countries, especially India. Adidas was unsatisfied with the verdict and will continue to vigilantly enforce its IP rights following due process of law including filing appeals. This decision has opened a pandora of debates for well-known marks and the degree of their identifiability. Hence this verdict will attract more trademark litigation cases in India.
Amul Strikes Back: Court Defends Iconic Trademark Against ‘Amuleti’ Infringement
Changing Trends in Trademark Enforcement Rights
Copyright Infringement – Section 63, A Cognizable and Non-Bailable Offence
Draft geographical Indications of Goods(Registration and Protection) (Amendment) Rules, 2023
Adidas Battle Against its “Three Stripe Mark”
Background
Around 2005, the Browne brand sold a three-striped design, known as the “Three-Bar Signature.” Adidas contacted the brand and they agreed to stop using it. Following that, in 2008 and 2009, the “Four-Bar Signature” appearance became available. Thom Browne’s usage of the striped design was likely to cause consumer misunderstanding and deceive the public.
- Adidas launched a trademark opposition proceeding in 2018 for a striped mark filed by Thom Browne in the European Union.
- In December 2020, Adidas filed opposition urging the trademark body to halt three pending trademark applications for red, white, and blue stripe trademarks for use by Thom Browne.
- In 2021, Adidas sued Thom Browne’s company, alleging infringement on its three-stripe trademark. Despite all the allegations, Thom Browne continuously stated that there is no confusion between its usage of four horizontal parallel bands and Adidas three stripes.
Legal Issues Involved in the Case
In the instant case, Adidas asserted 2 claims i.e. a claim of trademark infringement and a claim of trademark dilution by the defendant Thom Browne.
Trademark Infringement Claim
Adidas accused Thom Browne of infringing its “Three Stripe Mark” through the use of two branding designs called the “Four Bar” and “Grosgrain” designs and stated that its products are likely to cause public confusion and deceive the public into thinking that the products are made, sold or otherwise associated/sponsored by Adidas. Thom Browne argued that Adidas exercised unreasonable delay in asserting its claims. “Four-Bar Signature” was first sold in 2009 and was displayed on items of activewear at the fashion brand’s flagship New York store from 2010. However, Adidas claimed that it only became aware of the infringement in early 2018, when Thom Browne applied to trademark the “Grosgrain Signature”.
Trademark Dilution Claim
Adidas contended that there has been a “trademark dilution” of its distinctive Mark. Thom Browne refuted the claims stating that both brands have separate identities and no rights are infringed.
Conclusion
This judgment gives a blow to Adidas monopoly over the “three-stripe” mark and will affect other countries, especially India. Adidas was unsatisfied with the verdict and will continue to vigilantly enforce its IP rights following due process of law including filing appeals. This decision has opened a pandora of debates for well-known marks and the degree of their identifiability. Hence this verdict will attract more trademark litigation cases in India.
Amul Strikes Back: Court Defends Iconic Trademark Against ‘Amuleti’ Infringement
Changing Trends in Trademark Enforcement Rights
Copyright Infringement – Section 63, A Cognizable and Non-Bailable Offence
Draft geographical Indications of Goods(Registration and Protection) (Amendment) Rules, 2023
Connect with our Experts to resolve your legal issues!
KAnalysis is a boutique full service law firm, well positioned to represent its international and domestic clients.
© 2007 – 2024 KAnalysis Consultant Private Limited. All Rights Reserved