Adidas Am., Inc. v. Skechers United States, Inc.

Citation890 F.3d 747
Decision Date10 May 2018
Docket NumberNo. 16-35204,16-35204
Parties ADIDAS AMERICA, INC., a Delaware corporation; adidas AG; adidas International Marketing B.V., a foreign entity, Plaintiffs–Appellees, v. SKECHERS USA, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant–Appellant.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)

Jonathan Hacker (argued), O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Washington, D.C.; Jordan Raphael, Jeffrey A. Barker, Mark A. Samuels, and Daniel M. Petrocelli, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Los Angeles, California; for DefendantAppellant.

Richard Charles Henn Jr. (argued) and Charles H. Hooker III, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, Atlanta, Georgia; Adam H. Charnes, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, Dallas, Texas; for PlaintiffsAppellees.

Before: Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain, Richard R. Clifton, and Jacqueline H. Nguyen, Circuit Judges.

Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge Clifton

OPINION

NGUYEN, Circuit Judge:

Skechers USA, Inc. appeals the district court's issuance of a preliminary injunction prohibiting it from selling shoes that allegedly infringe and dilute adidas America, Inc.'s Stan Smith trade dress and Three–Stripe trademark. We hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing the preliminary injunction as to adidas's claim that Skechers's Onix shoe infringes on adidas's unregistered trade dress of its Stan Smith shoe. We conclude, however, that the district court erred in issuing a preliminary injunction as to adidas's claim that Skechers's Cross Court shoe infringes and dilutes its Three–Stripe mark. Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part.

I.FACTUAL BACKGROUND

adidas is a leading manufacturer of athletic apparel and footwear. Skechers is a footwear company that competes with adidas in the active footwear and apparel market. Skechers has grown to become the second largest footwear company in the United States, ahead of adidas and behind only Nike.

The Stan Smith has become one of adidas's most successful shoes in terms of sales and influence since its release in the 1970s. Deemed "[t]he favorite shoe of [fashion industry] insiders like designer Raf Simons and Marc Jacobs" by The Wall Street Journal and the "ultimate fashion shoe" by i-D magazine, the Stan Smith has received extensive media coverage and been featured in such print and online publications as Time , Elle , InStyle , and Vogue . The Stan Smith also has frequently appeared on lists of the most important or influential sneakers of all time and has earned industry accolades such as Footwear News 's 2014 "Shoe of the Year." That same year, adidas announced that the Stan Smith had become its top-selling shoe of all time, selling more than 40 million pairs worldwide.

adidas is also known for its Three–Stripe mark, which has been featured on its products for many years as part of its branding strategy and for which it owns federal trademark registrations. adidas claims to earn several hundred million dollars in annual domestic sales of products bearing the Three–Stripe mark. adidas advertises the Three–Stripe mark in print publications, on television, and in digital media and promotes it through celebrity endorsements, sporting events sponsorships, and athletic partnerships.

The parties have a history of trademark litigation that has previously resulted in Skechers acknowledging that "adidas is the exclusive owner" of the Three–Stripe mark and agreeing not to use it or any other protected mark "confusingly similar thereto." Despite the agreement, adidas has sued Skechers several times in the last twenty years for infringement of its Three–Stripe trademark.1

adidas filed the present lawsuit against Skechers on September 14, 2015, alleging, among other things, that Skechers's Onix shoe infringes on and dilutes the unregistered trade dress of adidas's Stan Smith shoe (both pictured below).adidas further alleges that Skechers's Relaxed Fit Cross Court TR (pictured below) infringes and dilutes adidas's Three–Stripe trademark, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), (c).

adidas filed a motion for preliminary injunction to prohibit Skechers from manufacturing, distributing, advertising, selling, or offering for sale the Onix and Cross Court. The district court granted adidas's motion and issued the preliminary injunction, finding that adidas established all the Winter factors. See Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. , 555 U.S. 7, 20, 129 S.Ct. 365, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008) ("A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.").

Skechers timely appealed.

II.STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review the district court's issuance of a preliminary injunction for an abuse of discretion. See Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co. , 571 F.3d 873, 876 (9th Cir. 2009). "A district court abuses its discretion in issuing a preliminary injunction if its decision is based on either an erroneous legal standard or clearly erroneous factual findings ...." Negrete v. Allianz Life Ins. Co. of N.A. , 523 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2008). "The legal issues underlying the injunction are reviewed de novo because a district court would necessarily abuse its discretion if it based its ruling on an erroneous view of law." GoTo.com, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co. , 202 F.3d 1199, 1204 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). By contrast, the district court's factual findings are reviewed for clear error. See Lahoti v. VeriCheck, Inc. , 586 F.3d 1190, 1195–96 (9th Cir. 2009).

III.ANALYSIS

Skechers contests only two of the factors under Winter , specifically, the district court's findings that adidas showed a likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm. Because the analysis for Skechers's Onix and Cross Court shoes differ, we take them each in turn.

A. Skechers's Onix and adidas's Stan Smith
i. Likelihood of Success on the Merits

Skechers challenges the district court's finding that adidas demonstrated a likelihood of success on its claim that Skechers's Onix shoe infringes on and dilutes adidas's unregistered Stan Smith trade dress.

"Trade dress protection applies to 'a combination of any elements in which a product is presented to a buyer,' including the shape and design of a product." Art Attacks Ink, LLC v. MGA Entm't Inc. , 581 F.3d 1138, 1145 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting 1 J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 8:1 (4th ed. 2008) ).2 To prove infringement of an unregistered trade dress, "a plaintiff must demonstrate that (1) the trade dress is nonfunctional, (2) the trade dress has acquired secondary meaning, and (3) there is a substantial likelihood of confusion between the plaintiff's and defendant's products." Id. Skechers contests only the latter two elements.

A trade dress has acquired secondary meaning when consumers associate the design features with a particular producer. Fleischer Studios, Inc. v. A.V.E.L.A., Inc. , 654 F.3d 958, 967 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). "Secondary meaning and likelihood of buyer confusion are separate but related determinations ...." Levi Strauss & Co. v. Blue Bell, Inc. , 632 F.2d 817, 821 (9th Cir. 1980). Some of the relevant factors for determining secondary meaning include the exclusivity, manner, and length of use of the trade dress, the amount and manner of advertising, the amount of sales, and proof of intentional copying by the defendant. Art Attacks , 581 F.3d at 1145.

The district court's finding that the Stan Smith has likely acquired secondary meaning is supported by ample evidence in the record. The evidence showed that adidas has used the Stan Smith trade dress exclusively since the early 1970s, expended considerable capital and human resources to promote the shoe, and reaped significant but difficult-to-quantify value from placing the Stan Smith with celebrities, musicians, athletes, and other "influencers" to drive consumer hype and recognition of the trade dress—which, in 2014, became adidas's top selling shoe of all time with the 40 millionth pair sold. See Transgo, Inc. v. Ajac Transmission Parts Corp. , 768 F.2d 1001, 1016 (9th Cir. 1985) (finding evidence of sales, promotional efforts, and duration of exclusive use indicative of secondary meaning). Also indicative of secondary meaning is the considerable amount of unsolicited media coverage praising the Stan Smith's influence and iconic status as one of the most famous sneakers of all time. See Golden Door, Inc. v. Odisho , 646 F.2d 347, 350–51 (9th Cir. 1980) ("The district court's finding that a secondary meaning has attached is supported by evidence of the extensive media coverage ....").

Skechers's own conduct also supports the district court's finding. "[P]roof of copying strongly supports an inference of secondary meaning." Vision Sports, Inc. v. Melville Corp. , 888 F.2d 609, 615 (9th Cir. 1989). Skechers placed metadata tags on its website that directed consumers who searched for "adidas Stan Smith" to the page for the Onix shoe. "Using another's trademark in one's metatags is much like posting a sign with another's trademark in front of one's store." Brookfield Commc'ns, Inc. v. W. Coast Entm't Corp. , 174 F.3d 1036, 1064 (9th Cir. 1999). We agree with the district court that "the only reason 'adidas Stan Smith' is a useful search term is that consumers associate the term with a distinctive and recognizable shoe made by adidas." Therefore, the district court did not clearly err by finding that the Stan Smith had acquired secondary meaning.

We turn next to the likelihood of confusion between the shoes. This factor turns on whether a reasonably prudent consumer would be confused about the source of the goods bearing the marks. Dreamwerks Prod. Grp., Inc. v. SKG Studio , 142 F.3d 1127, 1129 (9th Cir. 1998). "Likelihood of confusion in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
52 cases
  • Gonzalez v. Barr
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • April 7, 2020
  • LPD N.Y., LLC v. Adidas Am., Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • September 24, 2022
    ... ... ADIDAS AMERICA, INC. and ADIDAS AG, Defendants. No. 15-CV-6360 (MKB) United States District Court, E.D. New York September 24, 2022 ...           ... Inc ., 192 F.3d 337, 345 (2d Cir. 1999))); adidas ... America Inc. v. Skechers USA, Inc ., 890 F.3d 747, 752 ... (9th Cir. 2018) (“adidas is also known for its ... ...
  • California v. Azar
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • February 24, 2020
    ...court would necessarily abuse its discretion if it based its ruling on an erroneous view of law." adidas Am., Inc. v. Skechers USA, Inc. , 890 F.3d 747, 753 (9th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted).II"A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish [1] that he is likely to succeed on ......
  • Chamber of Commerce of the U.S. v. Bonta
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • September 15, 2021
    ...court would necessarily abuse its discretion if it based its ruling on an erroneous view of law." adidas Am., Inc. v. Skechers USA, Inc. , 890 F.3d 747, 753 (9th Cir. 2018) (quotation omitted).IIIA The Supremacy Clause states:This Constitution, and the laws of the United States ... shall be......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Branding in Puerto Rico through the Lens of the Coffee Industry
    • United States
    • ABA General Library Landslide No. 14-3, March 2022
    • March 1, 2022
    ...for infringing and diluting Adidas’s unregistered trade dress of its iconic Stan Smith Shoe. Adidas Am., Inc. v. Skechers USA, Inc., 890 F.3d 747, 761 (9th Cir. 2018). The court held that the nding that the Stan Smith had acquired secondary meaning was “supported by ample evidence.” Id. at......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT