adidas-America, Inc., v. Payless Shoesource, Inc.
United States District Court for the District of Oregon
546 F. Supp. 2d 1029 (2008)
- Written by Jody Stuart, JD
Facts
adidas-America and adidas-Salomon AG (collectively, Adidas) (plaintiffs) owned a valid registration for the Three-Stripe trademark, which consisted of three parallel stripes, each with straight edges and spaced equally apart, running diagonally along the side of an athletic shoe. Additionally, the stripes were a contrasting color to the background of the shoe. Payless Shoesource, Inc. (Payless) (defendant) sold athletic shoes that had two or four parallel stripes, with straight edges, running diagonally along the sides. The stripes were also a contrasting color to the background of the shoe. Payless was aware of the Three-Stripe trademark when it began selling the Payless striped shoes. The parties’ shoes were sold at different stores and prices. Adidas filed a claim for trademark infringement, accusing Payless of selling shoes with confusingly similar versions of the Three-Stripe trademark. Payless filed a motion for summary judgment. Adidas submitted evidence that the parties’ marketing channels overlapped and that Payless intended to copy the Three-Stripe trademark. Adidas also submitted evidence of harm from consumer confusion. Payless’s counsel acknowledged Payless consumers were not sophisticated.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (King, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.