890 F.3d 747 (9th Cir. 2018), 16-35204, adidas America, Inc. v. Skechers USA, Inc.
|Citation:||890 F.3d 747|
|Opinion Judge:||NGUYEN, Circuit Judge:|
|Party Name:||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.|
|Attorney:||Jonathan Hacker (argued), OMelveny & Myers LLP, Washington, D.C.; Jordan Raphael, Jeffrey A. Barker, Mark A. Samuels, and Daniel M. Petrocelli, OMelveny & Myers LLP, Los Angeles, California; for Defendant-Appellant. Richard Charles Henn Jr. (argued) and Charles H. Hooker III, Kilpatrick Townsen...|
|Judge Panel:||Before: Diarmuid F. OScannlain, Richard R. Clifton, and Jacqueline H. Nguyen, Circuit Judges. CLIFTON, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part:|
|Case Date:||May 10, 2018|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
Argued and Submitted October 7, 2016, Portland, Oregon
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, Marco A. Hernandez, District Judge, Presiding, D.C. No. 3:15-cv-01741-HZ.
Lanham Act / Preliminary Injunction
The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's preliminary injunction prohibiting Skechers USA, Inc., from selling shoes that allegedly infringe and dilute adidas America, Inc.'s Stan Smith trade dress and Three-Stripe mark.
Affirming in part, the panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing the preliminary injunction as to adidas's claim the Skechers's Onix shoe infringed on adidas's unregistered trade dress of its Stan Smith shoe. The panel concluded that adidas was likely to succeed on the merits of this claim because the trade dress was nonfunctional, the trade dress had acquired secondary meaning, and there was a substantial likelihood of confusion between the parties' products. In addition, the district court did not clearly err in finding a likelihood of irreparable harm to the Stan Smith.
Reversing in part, the panel held that the district court erred in issuing a preliminary injunction as to adidas's claim that Skechers's Cross Court shoe infringed and diluted its Three-Stripe mark. The panel held that the district court did not err in finding that adidas showed a likelihood of success on its trademark infringement and trademark dilution claims. Nonetheless, the district court abused its discretion in issuing the preliminary injunction because adidas did not show that it would be irreparably harmed from sale of the Cross Court.
Concurring in part and dissenting in part, Judge Clifton wrote that the preliminary injunction should be affirmed in full. Judge Clifton disagreed with the majority's reversal of the preliminary injunction as to the Cross Court shoe on the ground that there was not evidence to support the district court's determination that adidas was likely to suffer irreparable injury.
Jonathan Hacker (argued), OMelveny & Myers LLP, Washington, D.C.; Jordan Raphael, Jeffrey A. Barker, Mark A. Samuels, and Daniel M. Petrocelli, OMelveny & Myers LLP, Los Angeles, California; for Defendant-Appellant.
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 Plaintiffs-Appellees.
Before: Diarmuid F. OScannlain, Richard R. Clifton, and Jacqueline H. Nguyen, Circuit Judges.
NGUYEN, Circuit Judge:
Skechers USA, Inc. appeals the district courts 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 adidass claim that Skecherss Onix shoe infringes on adidass unregistered trade dress of its Stan Smith shoe. We conclude, however, that the district court erred in issuing a preliminary injunction as to adidass claim that Skecherss Cross Court shoe infringes and dilutes its Three-Stripe mark. Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part.
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 adidass 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 Skecherss Onix shoe infringes on and dilutes the unregistered trade dress of adidass Stan Smith shoe (both pictured below).
Page 753 (Image Omitted)
adidas further alleges that Skecherss Relaxed Fit Cross Court TR (pictured below) infringes and dilutes adidass Three-Stripe trademark, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), (c). (Image Omitted)
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 adidass 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.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review the district courts 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 courts factual findings are reviewed for clear error. See Lahoti v. VeriCheck, Inc., 586 F.3d 1190, 1195-96 (9th Cir. 2009).
Skechers contests only two of the factors under Winter, specifically, the district courts findings that adidas showed a likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm. Because the analysis for Skecherss Onix and Cross Court shoes differ, we take them each in turn.
A. Skecherss Onix and adidass Stan Smith
i. Likelihood of Success on the Merits
Skechers challenges the district courts finding that adidas demonstrated a likelihood of success on its claim that Skecherss Onix shoe infringes on and dilutes adidass 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 Entmt Inc., 581 F.3d 1138, 1145 (9th Cir...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP