ESCA Legal’s Post

ESCA Legal is a MUST follow for all your #iplaw & #brandprotection needs!

A(nother) Battle of the Stripes… 👟 By now it is well established that adidas has adopted a full-scale trade mark war against any clothing manufacturers using stripes as part of their brand. Their latest target forced to defend the Stripe Monarch is Wilson Sporting Goods Co. Adidas recently filed a Notice of Opposition with the USPTO to block one of Wilson’s trade mark applications for a logo featuring stripes (not three stripes we might add). This isn’t Adidas’s first stripe-related trade mark dispute. They have been involved in numerous cases, sometimes winning and sometimes losing, where they argue that their “3-Stripe” trade mark should prevent others from using stripes (in general). The aggressive nature of these efforts by Adidas raises questions about their true intentions; are they enforcing or bullying…? While we are in support of brand owners who protect and enforce their trade marks to avoid losing rights, it can easily be taken too far, especially by spe of the larger monopolies in industry. What do you think? Has Adidas gone too far this time, or do they have a valid opposition against Wilson? Share your thoughts and learn more about trade mark protection strategies with us at STEYN IP®. 🚀 Source: The amazing Mr Josh Gerben 🤘🏼 #STEYNIP #DreamersWelcome #AINNO #LegalMavericks #ProtectingCreativity #ProtectingDreams #IPinsights #createPROTECT #letsTALKip #intellectualproperty #intellectualpropertylaw #trademarks #patents #copyright #designs #YourBrandProtected #dreamBIG #IPLaw #ip #InnovationMatters #FileFirst #SIP #wilson #adidas

🚨 Nike’s Appeal: A Fight Against Fair Play? Nike, a brand synonymous with athletic excellence, is currently battling an appeal that has cast a harsh spotlight on its business ethics. The issue? A court-ordered report claims that Nike deliberately buried small Pennsylvania-based company Lontex in #legal fees over a #trademark dispute. Lontex, which developed "Cool Compression" technology under its “Sweat It Out” brand, was forced into a David vs. Goliath battle when Nike began using the same term for its #products. Despite a 2021 ruling holding Nike accountable for trademark #infringement and awarding Lontex compensation, Nike’s recent appeal focuses on overturning the decision to pay Lontex’s nearly $7 million in legal fees. What’s disturbing is the revelation that Nike’s true strategy wasn’t just to compete but to “kill Lontex’s business” with overwhelming legal expenses, as noted by a retired judge’s report. Judge Greenspan called out Nike’s “#bad_faith” and “vexatious litigation,” concluding that the sports giant used its resources to crush a much smaller competitor. The report suggests that this case is about more than just legal fees – it’s about corporate bullying and a disregard for fair play. Nike’s behavior, as detailed in the report, reflects a reckless indifference to smaller businesses’ survival, raising questions about the company’s #ethics. As the court reviews this report, it’s worth asking: Does a brand like Nike, with its global dominance, really need to win at any cost – even if that means pushing smaller players out of the game?

👀 Not every day you see a legal rumble over $5 million that could rival a dramatic bake-off, but in Lontex Corporation v. Nike, Inc., 2:18-cv-05623 (E.D. Pa.), that's exactly what's cooking! ➡ Lontex, a smaller sportswear company, claims that Nike helped itself to its “Cool Compression” trademark like it was reaching for the last biscuit on the plate. ✅ The dispute began in 2018 when Lontex accused Nike of using the trademark despite multiple cease-and-desist letters. ➡ Fast forward to the 2021 trial, where Lontex was awarded $142,000 in compensatory damages and $365,000 in punitive damages. ↪ But Lontex wasn’t content with just crumbs—they sought $5 million in legal fees, arguing that Nike's behaviour was so "exceptional" under the Lanham Act that it deserved a significant penalty. ↪ The U.S. District Court initially agreed, calling the case "exceptional," but Nike appealed the decision, and the Third Circuit ordered a closer review. ➡ In a new twist, Special Master Hon. Jane Greenspan recommended upholding the fee award, but Nike is pushing back, filing an objection on October 9. ↪ The sportswear giant argues that the term "exceptional" should be reserved for sporadic cases and disputes the idea that financial disparities justify attorney’s fees. ↪ Nike even dismissed the “David vs. Goliath” narrative as legally off-base, stating its own wins on key issues like counterfeiting and disgorgement. 🗯 They pointed out their wins on counterfeiting and disgorgement—no $95.7 million of profits to be snatched here, folks! 🗯 Whether this trademark spat ends with a fresh slice of justice or crumbled conclusions, we'll have to wait and see. #trademarklaw #nike #lontex #lanhamact #legalbattle #intellectualproperty #litigation #trademarkdispute #davidvsgoliath

🚨 𝐍𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐯𝐬. 𝐁𝐀𝐏𝐄: 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐧𝐞𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐫 𝐒𝐡𝐨𝐰𝐝𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐒𝐡𝐨𝐨𝐤 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐲! 🚨 Breaking News in the world of fashion law: Nike and A Bathing Ape (BAPE) have reached a major settlement in their long-running trademark dispute over sneaker designs. Nike initially sued BAPE in 2023, claiming that BAPE had been copying its iconic sneaker silhouettes—most notably, the legendary Air Force 1. This legal battle goes back nearly two decades, as BAPE has long been accused of mimicking Nike’s most famous designs. Now, the two brands have reached a settlement that will require BAPE to halt production of some of its most well-known sneaker models and redesign others. This is a huge victory for Nike and a reminder to all fashion brands that intellectual property is critical to protect—especially in such a competitive market. 💡 Why This Matters: Nike has proven once again that it’s willing to fiercely defend its designs, even against major global competitors. For BAPE, this settlement marks a turning point where the brand must rethink its approach to design innovation. This case is a wake-up call for brands everywhere: infringing on another company's design can lead to costly lawsuits and damage to your brand’s reputation. As the sneaker wars continue, this victory cements Nike’s position as a design leader and a legal powerhouse in the fashion industry. 👟💥 How will this settlement shape the future of sneaker culture and streetwear design? Only time will tell, but one thing is clear: the stakes have never been higher. #NikeVsBAPE #SneakerWars #TrademarkVictory #FashionLaw #IntellectualProperty #DesignProtection #AirForce1 #StreetwearCulture #LegalBattle #SneakerCulture #BrandProtection #TrademarkEnforcement #FashionIndustry #IPMatters #LegalVictory #InnovationInDesign #Sneakerhead #Sneaker #Trademark #Nike #BAPE D'souza Savio Cornelius

🚨 Adidas Loses Legal Battle Over Three Stripes 🚨 have you heard that? In a significant ruling on June 26, 2024, France’s supreme court sided with fashion brands Isabel Marant and Sandro, ending a six-year lawsuit filed by Adidas. The sportswear giant accused them of copying its iconic three stripes, claiming damage to its reputation and unfair competition. Why Adidas Lost: The court found Adidas’ evidence of infringement weak. No risk of consumer confusion was proven. Isabel Marant’s strong reputation and distinct market positioning helped their case. Case Timeline: 2018: Adidas sued Isabel Marant and Sandro. 2020: Initial ruling partially favoured Adidas. 2022: The Court of Appeal dismissed Adidas’ claims. 2024: Final ruling against Adidas, with compensation ordered. This case highlights the importance of strong evidence in intellectual property disputes. #LegalNews #FashionLaw #Adidas #IntellectualProperty #Pleadmaster #IPRlawyer #Trademark #Suratlawyers

Nike and Adidas took their rivalry from the track to the courtroom. Their clash over trademark rights presents a fascinating case study in brand protection and intellectual property law. Read my latest article for an in-depth analysis of this landmark legal battle, exploring the balance between innovation, brand identity, and legal strategy in the world of sports apparel. A must-read for professionals in law, business, and design. https://lnkd.in/eBhtyBiC #NikeAdidasLegalBattle #IPStrategy #BrandProtection

In 2018, adidas filed a lawsuit against Sandro, claiming that Sandro’s two stripes were too similar to adidas’ iconic three stripes. According to the German brand, this similarity misled consumers and harmed adidas' reputation. However, in 2020, the Paris court of first instance partially dismissed adidas' claims. The court ruled that Sandro’s two stripes were distinct enough from adidas’ three stripes and did not create confusion among consumers. In 2022, the Paris Court of Appeal also ruled in favor of Sandro, considering the differences in the number, width, and spacing of the stripes in Sandro’s designs. The court further acknowledged that the two-stripe design was part of a broader fashion trend that gained popularity in 2017-2018, with many brands incorporating similar stripe patterns. The final blow to adidas' claims came when the French Court of Cassation upheld the appellate decision, requiring adidas to cover Sandro’s legal costs. The court concluded that adidas' claims lacked sufficient merit, and their arguments were unconvincing to overturn previous rulings. Adidas also sued Isabel Marant, but the court reached a similar conclusion: the resemblance between the brands’ stripes was minimal, and Isabel Marant’s reputation was strong enough to prevent consumer confusion. As a result, adidas was ordered to pay €40,000 to Isabel Marant and €20,000 to Sandro. #fashionlaw #adidas #sandro #intellectualproperty #business

You may have heard of "The Shoe Surgeon" (real name: Dominic Ciambrone), the LA-based artist who built a massive social media following and sneaker customization empire that includes an "academy" on shoe personalization. In a recent development, Ciambrone has come under fire from Nike, which has taken legal action against him, seeking $60 million for trademark infringement and counterfeiting, sending shockwaves through the industry. https://lnkd.in/g2ZMiQuk This lawsuit is emblematic of the collision between the bespoke customization trend and brand protection. Nike has stated that they appreciated explicit brand collaborations with artists like The Shoe Surgeon in the past, but the scale of Ciambrone's alleged infringement, including unauthorized collaborations with additional brands and artists, has prompted Nike's legal action as a preemptive stance to safeguard its brand integrity. At District Trademark, we are closely monitoring the outcome of this story. As the worlds of personalization, brand allegiance, and trademark rights converge, artists and businesses alike are urged to seek guidance and adhere to legal frameworks to safeguard their creative pursuits. #DistrictTrademark #LawFirm #DistrictTM #IntellectualProperty #Trademarks #SneakerCustomization #BrandIntegrity #TrademarkInfringement #CorporateOwnership #Creativity #TrademarkProtection #DistrictTrademark #LawFirm #DistrictTM #IntellectualProperty #Trademarks #TrademarkInfringement #CorporateOwnership

Former President Trump's High Top Sneaker Launch: Sold Out and Controversial Discover the buzz around Former President Trump's new high top sneakers designed for black culture. Find out why they sold out within hours, the mixed reactions, and the underlying message behind this unexpected product release. #TrumpSneakers #ControversialLaunch #BlackCultureFashion #LimitedEdition #HighTopSneakers #PoliticalMerchandise #SneakerCollectors #FashionTrends #Trump2021 #UnexpectedProduct