recording1680088740470

Adidas filed a complaint against the Black Lives Matter movement over a trademark issue. However, they have now reportedly withdrawn the complaint, possibly due to the negative public perception and the timing being seen as opposing a movement addressing racial injustice. The United States Patent and Trademark Office gave Black Lives Matter until May 6th to respond, but there has been no response yet. As of now, it seems that Black Lives Matter has won this battle. Welcome to this episode of the Diary of a Lawyer. Today we are going to be talking about Adidas and its current, now reportedly withdrawn complaint in relation to a trademark issue against the Black Lives Matter movement. Now before we go into the actual case details, I think it could be helpful to have just a brief background of who actually, just the background of Adidas is. Now Adidas is a German multinational corporation that was founded and headquartered in Herzogenaurach, Bavaria. I hope that's pronounced properly. And it designs, as everybody knows, and manufactures various sportswear, shoes, clothing and accessories. And according to public records, it's the largest in Europe and I think second in the world, second only to Nike. It's also the holding company for the Adidas Group, which has a stake in Bayern Munich, according to public records, and Rutansic, which is also, which is an Austrian fitness technology company. Adidas' revenue is over the years listed in billions. We won't go into the specific details, but it's a huge amount. And as we know, recently they had to cut their relationship with a very well-known American artist, let's just say that. For obvious reasons, for various reasons. And we're not getting to the sides of back and forth. And the company was started by Adolf Dessier and was later joined by Rudolf, his brother, around 1924. And he was under the name Gebru Dessier Schifferbrück, if pronounced properly, which loosely translated, Dessler Brothers Shoe Factory, in English. He has, over the years, over the decades, manufactured running shoes and multiple athletic events and the development of other athletic events and sports. It is reported that Dessier, the founder of Adidas, persuaded U.S. sprinter Jesse Owens to use his Adidas' handmade spikes at the 1936 Summer Olympics. And which, as you know, Jesse Owens is a very instrumental historical figure in that regard. And in 1949, the relationship between the two brothers disintegrated and his brother, Rudolf, established Puma, which in itself is a well-known brand, arguably successful in its own right. Now, the three stripes are Adidas' identity mark and have been used on the country's products for a very long time. It is again reported, according to public records, that it bought the three stripes from a Finnish sports company for a very meager amount of money. And which, as we all know, has since become very, very successful. Which now brings us to the case of Adidas and the Black Lives Matter. So, based on public records of its filing in the United States Patent and Trademark Office, which is being had before the trial, was going to be considered before the trial, before the trademark trial and appeal board, Adidas starts off saying that there's no issue as to priority, where in terms of when Black Lives Matter started using the three stripes, and it says for Patent that there's no issue as to priority, Adidas began using the three stripes mark in commerce in connection with footwear, apparel, accessories and related goods and services well prior to applicant's November 2020 filing date and any claimed date of first use from reading the patent. Consumers familiar with the goods and services long associated with the three stripe mark are likely to assume that the goods and services offered under applicant's mark originate from the same source or that they are affiliated, connected or associated with or sponsored by Adidas. This is essentially saying people will associate the three stripes of Black Lives Matter with Adidas. It goes into say that the applicant's mark as shown in application incorporate three stripes in a manner that is confusingly similar to the three stripes mark in appearance and overall commercial impression. It adds that the goods and services identified in class 18, 25 and 35 of the application are identical or highly related to the goods and services Adidas has long offered in connection with the stripes mark. It goes on to add in conclusion that the registration of the Black Lives Mark in classes 18, 25 and 35 is likely to delete the defectiveness of the three stripes mark by eroding consumer's exclusive identification of the mark with Adidas and otherwise lessen the capacity of this trademark. It goes on to say that the application of the three stripes mark to identify and distinguish the goods and services of Adidas in violation of section 43, subsection C, subsection 1 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C., column 1125, subsection C, subsection 1. Essentially, they're saying that it will be in violation of the relevant U.S. law. So, that is the actual filing. But since then, media reports have indicated, shortly before we came on this podcast, that Adidas has backtracked. And a spokesperson is quoted as saying Adidas will withdraw its opposition to the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation's trademark application as soon as possible. And they have not given an official reason from the records we have seen as to why they're doing that. But the overall speculation and understanding is that they have recognized that this may be a PR disaster for Adidas because it will be seen as opposing a genuine movement that was born, or at least made, propelled to global attention as a result of the sad killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, Massachusetts, led through protests all around the world, and really the attention brought in by the Black Lives Matter movement that is now in loose organization all over the world. And so, that's sort of the context around it. And also, I should add that the timing was very unfortunate for Adidas because the current conversation in the public sphere is around reparation. We've seen the vice president, Kamala Harris, in Ghana, herself, from the father's side, a descendant of slaves, standing at a site where millions over the hundreds of years were kidnapped, murdered, tortured, raped, and others transported to either the Caribbean or South America or other parts of the world or America as slaves of people of African descent. And Black Lives Matter is associated with dealing with the residue and the injustice that has sprung from centuries of racism and racial injustice towards people of African descent, whether that's slavery, colonialism, institutional racism, and the various inequalities that spring from that. We've also seen Picardian admit publicly that their founders were benefited from slavery through the cotton trade. And they have since issued various remarks around that and saying that there will be paying reparations in one way or the other. And so the timing of being seen to oppose a movement that addresses that sort of issue would be a PR disaster for Adidas. In fact, Picardian has a special series called The Cotton Capital, How Slavery Changed Picardian Britain and the World, and how its founders had links to slavery. And it has since issued an apology. So that is, I think, the speculation or the thinking around why Adidas has withdrawn its complaint or its opposition to the Black Lives Matter movement, which it had made to the United States Patent and Trademark Office and the office before the trademark trial and appeal board. So there we shall leave it. But I think it's important to note that the United States Patent and Trademark Office had given Black Lives Matter around 6 May, according to public records, to respond. I haven't seen any response from them yet. But if it is indeed accurate, as reported in the media, that Adidas has now withdrawn their complaint, then it's good news for them. And we're assuming at some point they may comment. But at the time of this podcast, nothing had been quoted or associated with a response from the Black Lives Matter movement. So there we are. As things stand, Black Lives Matter 1, Adidas 0. And we shall leave it there and speak again on this episode of The Diary of a Lawyer. And thank you for listening. And there we shall leave it today. And we shall speak again. Thank you. Bye.