Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Trademarks involving words or elements common in an industry are generally the most challenging trademarks to protect and enforce. This can be especially true in the fashion industry, where common features such as colors, designs, style, and patterns often play a crucial role in conveying brand identity and exclusivity. While combinations of these kinds of common elements may be capable of serving as trademarks, such trademarks can be challenging to register and to protect because the owner must show more to establish their distinctiveness. Even then, such marks are entitled to a narrower ambit of protection against marks made up of even quite similar elements. The dispute between fashion powerhouses Adidas and Thom Browne over stripe designs reveals the intricacies of brand protection and the scope of trademarks based on common elements especially within the fashion world.
In June 2021, more than a decade after it first sent a cease-and-desist letter complaining about Thom Browne's stripes design renowned sportswear giant, Adidas, filed suit against the luxury fashion brand in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging trademark infringement, unfair competition, and dilution. The dispute centered on a venerable, inarguably simple, and widely used design: stripes. Specifically, Adidas objected to Thom Browne's use of a four-stripe design on its clothing and footwear, which Adidas alleged bore a striking resemblance to its iconic three-stripe trademark. Adidas has been aggressive about protecting its three-stripe design; it holds a total of 24 U.S. federal registered trademark registrations for its three-stripe mark. In its complaint, Adidas also sought to enjoin Thom Browne from using, advertising, or selling apparel with the challenged four-stripe design.
Litigation proceeded and, after settlement attempts proved unsuccessful, the case was tried to a jury in January 2023. After a nine-day trial, the jury deliberated for only a few hours before returning a verdict in favor of Thom Browne on all counts. Thom Browne's core argument at trial was that, despite Adidas's strong trademark recognition for its three-stripe design, Adidas does not have trademark rights to all stripes, and certainly not to a four-stripe design.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
Ideally, the objective of defining the role and responsibilities of Practice Group Leaders should be to establish just enough structure and accountability within their respective practice group to maximize the economic potential of the firm, while institutionalizing the principles of leadership and teamwork.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?