Posted in Articles, Branding, well known Marks, Fashion, Infringement, Look-For Ads, Marketing, Non-Traditional Trademarks, Sight, Trademarks, USPTO

*

We haven’t until currently probed the definition of “stripe” though: “A lengthy narrow tape or strip, frequently of the same width transparent its length, different in color or texture from the surface on either next of it.” Synonyms include, lines, bands, belts and bars, among others.

See wherein I’m headed? What is a reasonable scope of legal rights for this likely well known mark?

Interestingly, even if it is by strategic style or unintentional absence of consistency, Adidas has called versions of its three-stripe maker mark in ~ the USPTO, 3 parallel bands, 3 diagonal quadrilaterals, and three slanted quadrilateral bars too.

*
*
*
*

Whatever the verbiage though, the very first time i encountered the contending Lululemon brand, my eye were drawn to the continual application of three parallel present positioned top top the upper chest/shoulder area the the shirt, leave me to wonder why Adidas tolerates this non-functional marking and symbol, especially given its hefty enforcement appetite:

*

Turns out, Adidas speak up a couple of years ago when Lululemon applied to federally it is registered a non-traditional trademark described as “three parallel bars applied to the front left-hand seam of the upper chest/shoulder area the the shirt, t-shirt, sweatshirt, sweater, tank-top or jacket,” as shown in the illustration below:

*

It’s curious the Lululemon chose to speak to the three parallel lines, “bands,” (Adidas verbiage) especially because during beginning it explained a “Three Stitch design mark,” i beg your pardon seems much more accurate, yet after convincing the USPTO the Lululemon had actually a distinctive non-traditional mark, Adidas come knocking and opposed anyway.

Having stated that, Adidas knocked just so hard, together its mission shows up to have been focused on avoiding registration only, no use, due to the fact that the use persists number of years later. Wouldn’t you gain the possibility to watch the evident settlement and coexistence agreement?

Had Adidas not opposed, or had actually Lululemon been able to defend the opposition, maybe Lulu would certainly be in a stronger place to do something around these Reef shoes that I initially mistook because that an extension of the Lululemon brand (until spending much more time handling them):

*

What execute you think, execute you suppose Reef pair of shoes felt much more comfortable adopting the three stitch an equipment on shoes due to the fact that Lulu has actually no non-traditional trademark registration and also would have actually to create non-functionality and also common legislation rights come enforce, or perhaps, due to the fact that Lulu has apparently stopped selling footwear and shoes?

Do you expect that Reef pair of shoes has focused on the registration of various other non-traditional marks and refrained from seeking commonwealth registration the its 3 stitch style because the doesn’t want to hear native Adidas?

Is it same to say the the Adidas’ stripes, bands, and also quadrilaterals don’t actors a shadow on stitches, at least when it involves use, together opposed to registration?