• On TechRepublic: Your resume will be tossed if. . .
May 7, 2008 9:29 AM PDT

Adidas wins big in trademark dispute

by Michael Valek
  • Font size
  • Print
  • Post a comment

On Monday, an Oregon jury returned a verdict for Adidas awarding it damages of almost $305,000,000 in a trademark dispute against Kansas-based Collective Brands Inc., which operates Payless ShoeSource. The jury found that Payless had infringed Adidas' "Three Stripe Mark" and "Superstar" trade dress by selling shoes that bore confusingly similar marks. The jury also found Payless liable for unfair and deceptive trade practices and trademark dilution.

All told, the jury found Payless liable for over 250 different shoe designs. Below are a few of the shoe designs that the jury decided infringed Adidas' rights.

The jury awarded three different types of monetary damages to Adidas. First, it decided that Adidas was entitled to recover $30,610,179 in "actual damages," that is, the actual damage that Adidas suffered presumably through lost profits or dilution of its brand. Next the jury awarded Adidas an additional $137,003,578 that represented Payless's profits from the sale of the offending shoe designs. Finally, the jury determined that Payless had "acted with malice, or in wanton and reckless disregard of the rights of adidas" and awarded another $137,003,578 in punitive damages.

That's a total figure of $304,617,335, which to say the least is a remarkable number for this (or any) type of litigation.

According to a press release on the Collective Brands website: "Collective Brands, Inc. ("the Company") (NYSE: PSS) understands that a verdict of $305 million has been reached in the previously disclosed adidas matter pending in the federal court in Portland, Oregon. The Company is reviewing the verdict and assessing its impact. The Company believes that the verdict was excessive and unjustified. The Company will ask the court to set aside the verdict and, if it is not granted, intends to take all necessary steps to overturn it."

Michael Valek is a lawyer specializing in intellectual property law with the law firm of Vinson & Elkins LLP. His views are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of Vinson & Elkins or its clients. He is a member of the CNET blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. The postings on this site were created for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice. Disclaimer.
Recent posts from BLIP: Blogging Patents
Supreme Court grants victory to Quanta in patent case
Helping patent examiners examine patents
Adidas wins big in trademark dispute
Reply to Mr. Ohman concerning patent dispute with Lance Armstrong Foundation
Lance Armstrong Foundation sued by holder of design patent for BARKSTRONG pet collar
RAMBUS: The battle over hold-ups in industry standard setting
Quick appellate review of patent claim constructions: Is the door opening for interlocutory appeals?
A unique brand of monopoly
advertisement

Google's social side aims for some Buzz

Facebook and Twitter are the darlings of the social-media world, not Google--which hopes to change that with Buzz, betting it can organize your online social life.

Watching the birth of a gaming start-up

Stewart Butterfield and his friends are back at it with a new company. CNET's Daniel Terdiman was given exclusive, behind-the-scenes access as they built it from scratch.

About BLIP: Blogging Patents

Michael Valek, Chris Ryan, and Matt Wermager are lawyers with the firm of firm of Vinson & Elkins LLP. Here, they discuss recent developments in our intellectual property system, the role the law plays to encourage innovation, as well as why any or all of this should matter to the rest of us. The postings on this site were created for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice. Disclaimer.

Add this feed to your online news reader

BLIP: Blogging Patents topics

advertisement

Inside CNET News

Scroll Left Scroll Right