Case A: Adidas America Inc. vs. Sketchers USA Inc.
Background
On September 14th, 2015, Plaintiff A (Plaintiff Adidas America Inc.) filed a complaint of trademark infringement, trade dress infringement, unfair competition, deceptive trade practices and trademark and trade dress dilution, against Defendant S (Sketchers USA Inc.). Plaintiff A put forward such claims due to the assertion of belief that throughout the years, Defendant S had knowingly and continuously produced shoes designs which possessed jarringly similar to those of trademarked signature designs produced by Plaintiff A.
Plaintiff A and Defendant S are known to have a long ongoing vendetta that stems from the infamous 1994 Civil Suit and 1995 Settlement Agreement. The 1994 Civil Suit was filed for the infringement of Defendant’s Karl Kani footwear design which was the first to infringe Plaintiff A’s Three Stripe Design trademark. The suit was based on Defendant S’ violation of Section 32 and 43(a) of the Lanham Act (trademark infringement and false designation and description) and federal and state laws prohibiting acts of unfair competition. The later settlement agreement recorded the legally binding covenant which …show more content…
Before the preliminary injunction, Defendant S filed a motion to strike, with the base assertion that the representative of Plaintiff A did not have sufficient personal knowledge to testify about submitted numerical evidences (advertising expenditures and sales figures) for adidas’ Stan Smith Trade Dress, that the publications presented as evidence (relating to Stan Smith-tennis player) were hearsay, and that through the supplemental declaration and expert testimony, Plaintiff A has improperly raised subsidiary issues pertaining to its main claims. However, Defendant S’ motion to strike is denied for non-merit bearing
Background
On September 14th, 2015, Plaintiff A (Plaintiff Adidas America Inc.) filed a complaint of trademark infringement, trade dress infringement, unfair competition, deceptive trade practices and trademark and trade dress dilution, against Defendant S (Sketchers USA Inc.). Plaintiff A put forward such claims due to the assertion of belief that throughout the years, Defendant S had knowingly and continuously produced shoes designs which possessed jarringly similar to those of trademarked signature designs produced by Plaintiff A.
Plaintiff A and Defendant S are known to have a long ongoing vendetta that stems from the infamous 1994 Civil Suit and 1995 Settlement Agreement. The 1994 Civil Suit was filed for the infringement of Defendant’s Karl Kani footwear design which was the first to infringe Plaintiff A’s Three Stripe Design trademark. The suit was based on Defendant S’ violation of Section 32 and 43(a) of the Lanham Act (trademark infringement and false designation and description) and federal and state laws prohibiting acts of unfair competition. The later settlement agreement recorded the legally binding covenant which …show more content…
Before the preliminary injunction, Defendant S filed a motion to strike, with the base assertion that the representative of Plaintiff A did not have sufficient personal knowledge to testify about submitted numerical evidences (advertising expenditures and sales figures) for adidas’ Stan Smith Trade Dress, that the publications presented as evidence (relating to Stan Smith-tennis player) were hearsay, and that through the supplemental declaration and expert testimony, Plaintiff A has improperly raised subsidiary issues pertaining to its main claims. However, Defendant S’ motion to strike is denied for non-merit bearing