Adidas sues over Ralph Lauren stripes :

A German footwear and athletic-gear maker Adidas Salomon AG has sued Ralph Lauren Corp.
for trademark infringement, accusing the U.S. fashion labels Polo line of copying its famous
three-striped logo. The lawsuit was filed by Adidas America Inc., the Portland-based U.S.
subsidiary of Adidas, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. The complaint claims
that a Polo jacket with two stripes on its sleeves bears too close a resemblance to an Adidas
jacket with three stripes. The Polo jacket "is likely to deceive, confuse and mislead actual and
prospective purchasers into believing that apparel sold by (Polo Ralph Lauren) is manufactured
by, authorized by, or in some manner associated with (Adidas), which it is not," according to the
lawsuit, filed Aug13. Adidas asked the court to order Polo Ralph Lauren to recall all its apparel
with a similar logo and deliver it -- with all accompanying advertising and promotional material
-- "for impoundment and for destruction." Adidas, the world's No. 2 athletic apparel maker
after Nike Inc., has used its three-stripe logo since 1952. In recent years, the company has
stepped up efforts to protect the trademark. Earlier this year, Adidas sued the U.S. Polo
Association, based in Kentucky, when it produced a shoe with two stripes. Last month, Adidas
sued Vision Sports Inc., which coordinates youth basketball leagues, for producing a shoe with
four stripes. Both of those lawsuits were filed in federal court in Portland.
ISSUE :
A German footwear and athletic-gear maker Adidas Salomon AG has sued Ralph Lauren
Corp. for trademark infringement, accusing the U.S. fashion labels Polo line of copying
its famous three-striped logo.
The lawsuit was filed by Adidas America Inc., the Portland-based U.S. subsidiary of
Adidas, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon.
. The complaint claims that a Polo jacket with two stripes on its sleeves bears too close a
resemblance to an Adidas jacket with three stripes.
The Polo jacket "is likely to deceive, confuse and mislead actual and prospective
purchasers into believing that apparel sold by (Polo Ralph Lauren) is manufactured by,
authorized by, or in some manner associated with (Adidas), which it is not," according to
the lawsuit, filed Aug13.

DECISION:

The shoemaker suffered a setback in its seven-year battle to protect its famous trademark
in Europe, when the European Court of Justice rejected the companys claim that the use
of a two-stripe design by Netherlands-based Fitnessworld Trading Ltd. infringed on
Adidas' trademark.

Fendi vs. Burlington: trademark infringement case

Fendi originally sued Burlington in 1986 for buying counterfeit Fendi products from distributors
that were not authorized, sponsored or approved by the luxury brand.
In May 1987, Burlington entered into a consent injunction with Fendi, agreeing not to sell any
merchandise bearing Fendi's trademarks without explicit authorization from Fendi.
As early as 1993, Burlington had already begun to violate the injunction, and even after
receiving cease-and-desist letters from Fendi in April 2004, it continued to sell counterfeit goods,
according to the Fendi and its affiliates filed suit in January 2006 seeking to enjoin Burlington
from violating the trademarks, and to obtain damages based on the amount of profits the retailer
received from the products. A federal judge has awarded Italian luxury brand Fendi SRL more
than $4.6 million in contempt sanctions following a ruling that Burlington Coat Factory
Warehouse Corp. violated a 1987 injunction by continuing to sell counterfeit bags obtained by
unauthorized retailers for almost two decades.

ISSUE :

Fendi originally sued Burlington in 1986 for buying counterfeit Fendi products from
distributors that were not authorized, sponsored or approved by the luxury brand.
In May 1987, Burlington entered into a consent injunction with Fendi, agreeing not to sell
any merchandise bearing Fendi's trademarks without explicit authorization from Fendi.
As early as 1993, Burlington had already begun to violate the injunction, and even after
receiving cease-and-desist letters from Fendi in April 2004, it continued to sell
counterfeit goods, according to the Fendi and its affiliates filed suit in January 2006
seeking to enjoin Burlington from violating the trademarks, and to obtain damages based
on the amount of profits the retailer received from the products.
DECISION:

The judge awarded summary judgment to Fendi on Feb. 8, finding that Burlington
knowingly infringed Fendi trademarks by selling counterfeit bags and other leather goods
in violation of a 1987 consent judgment and injunction.
The sanctions are only part of the award Fendi will recoup from the case. In addition to
the $4.66 million which consists of a $2.42 million monetary award plus $1.5 million
in prejudgment interest and $542,000 in attorneys' fees Fendi is set to take home treble
damages.
In addition to granting summary judgment to Fendi on its trademark infringement,
trademark dilution and unfair competition claims, the judge ordered Burlington to submit
compliance reports every six months for the next five years to prevent further
infringement.

Amar suiting Ltd vs. Amartex Syntex Pvt. Ltd

The company Amar suitings Ltd made an appeal to the high court of Punjab that another
company Amartex Syntex Pvt.Ltd was using the same trademark as they were. The appellant
company stated that they were using the trademark 'a logo of a galloping horse' from 1990. The
appellant company used the trade name Amartex Suitings with the logo of galloping horse while
the defendant used Amtex suiting with the logo of running horse.
The appellant argued that on packaging used by defendant they have a trademark of Amtex
Suitings with a galloping horse. This was affecting the sales of the appellant company as people
in their normal human course of activities got confused with both the trademarks.

The defendant denies the claim against it stating that from its inception it was using the name
Amtex Suitings.They allege that the trademark Amtex Suitings is phonetically different and the
color,shade and design are also different.They allege they had no intention of coping the
trademark of the appellant and passing off its own goods as that of the applicants.

ISSUE:

The company Amar suitings Ltd made an appeal to the high court of Punjab that another
company Amartex Syntex Pvt.Ltd was using the same trademark as they were.
The appellant company stated that they were using the trademark 'a logo of a galloping
horse' from 1990. The appellant company used the trade name Amartex Suitings with the
logo of galloping horse while the defendant used Amtex suiting with the logo of running
horse.
The appellant argued that on packaging used by defendant they have a trademark of
Amtex Suitings with a galloping horse. This was affecting the sales of the appellant
company as people in their normal human course of activities got confused with both the
trademarks.
COURT'S DECISION:

The court held that both the trademarks are phonetically similar. Since both the trademark
are in respect of cloth/suiting hence the goods is also the same. It is true that there is a
spelling difference between the names but the overall impression comes out to be the
same.
Thus the common may get confused between the two trademarks. Therefore, if the
defendant is allowed to pass of its goods by using a deceptively similar trademark then
the appellant may suffer irreparable loss. Thus the defendant and all the people associated
with it were barred from using the trademark Amtex Suitings with a galloping horse.

Puma loses trademark case

Puma a large German multinational company that produces sportswear accused Global
Warming , a South African distributor of footwear of trademark infringement in 2009 . Puma
contended in the application that the Global Warming's trademark is confusingly similar to it's
trademark and, moreover that confuses their clients, making them believe Global Warming's
products are in fact Puma's products. However, the Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed the
application for trademark infringement brought by German manufacturer Puma against South
African importer and distributor of footwear Global Warming in 2009. Then Puma also appealed
in the High Court with the same case of infringement and the high court also decided that there
are many differences between the two trademarks. Therefore, Puma lost this trademark
infringement case. Global Warming( Pte Ltd) is a South African footwear distributor and is being
accused of infringing trademarks belonging to Puma AG Rudolf Dassler Sport(Puma).

Puma is alleging that the GW mark exhibited on their products has infringed upon two of Puma's
registered trademarks. The trial court ruled out any infringement and Puma escalated the appeal
to the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA).In dismissing the appeal ,the court held there were
distinguishing features between the two trademarks as Puma is the proprietor of two trademark
registrations in SA for its form strip device , a tapering device used on its footwear.It had
instituted a trademark infringement action in the Cape High Court against Global Warming
,alleging that it used a mark that was confusingly similar to Puma's form strip device. Global
Warming denied that the footwear was similar to Puma's on the grounds that its shoes had
distinctive split down the length of the mark.
Puma claimed royalties, an interdict and delivery of shoes from which the infringing mark could
not be removed .

The high court held that the onus rested on Puma to show that the mark used by Global
Warming closely resembled its mark and it was likely to deceive or confuse the average
purchaser.

ISSUE:

Puma a large German multinational company that produces sportswear accused Global
Warming, a South African distributor of footwear of trademark infringement in 2009 .
Puma contended in the application that the Global Warming's trademark is confusingly
similar to it's trademark and, moreover that confuses their clients, making them believe
Global Warming's products are in fact Puma's products.
However, the Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed the application for trademark
infringement brought by German manufacturer Puma against South African importer and
distributor of footwear Global Warming in 2009.
Then Puma also appealed in the High Court with the same case of infringement and the
high court also decided that there are many differences between the two trademarks.
Therefore, Puma lost this trademark infringement case.

COURT'S DECISION:

But the court ruled that there significant distinguishing features between the two marks
and said the average buyer would be able to see that Global Warming's footwear was not
the same as Puma's shoes . There was no need to consider the issue of royalties.
However , the court was not pursuaded that Puma would have been entitled to anything.
more than 5% royalty on net sales which the companies had agreed upon . puma took the
matter on appeal, but the appeal court agreed with the court s ruling that there were
distinguishing characteristics between the marks .

Starbucks falls prey to accusations of bullying in trademark

dispute :
Damrong Maslae and his brother Damras are two independent Thai coffee vendors who have
recently become caught up. their company Starbung was sued by Starbucks for trademark
infringement.

Starbucks delivered a cease-and-desist letter to the brothers late last year, calling for Starbung to
stop using its logo and name. The US company subsequently filed a trademark infringement
complaint and sought 300,000 baht ($9,600) in damages plus an additional 7.5% annual interest
and monthly instalments of 30,000 baht until the pair drop the Starbung logo. But having
obtained an injunction against the coffee vendors, Starbucks then filed a petition with
Thailands Central Intellectual Property and International Trade (IP&IT) Court, calling for
the arrest of the vendors for failing to comply with the injunction and continuing their use of the
Starbung logo.

ISSUE:

Damrong Maslae and his brother Damras are two independent Thai coffee vendors who
have recently become caught up. their company Starbung was sued by Starbucks for
trademark infringement.

Starbucks delivered a cease-and-desist letter to the brothers late last year, calling for
Starbung to stop using its logo and name.

The US company subsequently filed a trademark infringement complaint and sought

300,000 baht ($9,600) in damages plus an additional 7.5% annual interest and monthly
instalments of 30,000 baht until the pair drop the Starbung logo.

DECISION :
 Starbucks petition was rejected at a court hearing last week. The IP&IT Court urged the
two sides to settle their dispute before the next hearing and since then Starbung has
agreed to change its name to Stylebung Coffee-Tea.

For Stylebung, the battle with one of the worlds top 100 brands could prove to be a
boon. The brothers have garnered a years-worth of publicity, and it is probably safe to
say that they are the only street coffee vendor in Thailand with such a level
of international brand recognition. Starbucks on the other hand has had attracted negative
headlines for its action - appearing to some as a multinational trademark bully.