Adidas SUES Wimbledon, Grand Slams [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Adidas SUES Wimbledon, Grand Slams

mangoes
04-25-2006, 11:01 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060425/ap_on_sp_te_ne/ten_adidas_vs__wimbledon

Adidas SUES Wimbledon, Grand Slams
By KRYSTYNA RUDZKI, AP Sports Writer
Tue Apr 25, 11:36 AM ET


WIMBLEDON, England - Adidas is suing the four Grand Slam tournaments and the International Tennis Federation in a dispute over the size of its logo.

Wimbledon officials said Tuesday that Adidas filed papers in London's High Court last week seeking an injunction against a rule limiting the size of logos on players' clothing. Adidas also filed a claim for damages.

Wimbledon is the first Grand Slam event affected by the dispute, which began last May. Adidas is also suing the U.S., Australian and French Opens.

All England Club chief executive Ian Ritchie said Wimbledon would "vigorously defend" the case, which he described as "totally without foundation."

The Grand Slam Committee ruled last May that Adidas' three stripes were a "manufacturers' identification" and not a "design effect." Adidas was told its logos must be no larger than 4-square inches.

The rule goes into effect on June 26, the first day of play at Wimbledon.

The German sporting goods manufacturer said Tuesday the rule was issued "one-sidedly, without respecting the industry's needs and without considering concerns raised in advance."

The company said the rule "discriminates against Adidas and infringes elementary EU competition rights."

Adidas contended the three stripes running down shirt sleeves or shorts are not a standard logo. It said the official logo is the "performance logo" depicting three stripes arranged in a pyramid with Adidas written underneath.

"We do not want a situation where we see players covered in large numbers of manufacturers' identifications and have large crocodiles and large swooshes," Ritchie said. "If you accept the situation with the three stripes, then you open the floodgates to players being advertising billboards."

Ritchie said the Grand Slam committee had increased the size for logos from 2-square inches to 4, and given Adidas 13 months to comply with the new rule. He said Adidas' reaction was "heavy-handed."

"We think that's a perfectly reasonable compromise and they should comply with that," Ritchie said. "As far as I'm aware, the other manufacturers have said they are happy with the situation. We need to be equal to everybody."

Deboogle!.
04-25-2006, 11:03 PM
:retard: I'd love to know what they're suing for exactly - what the cause of action is... sounds pretty frivolous to me.

rofe
04-25-2006, 11:22 PM
:lol: I just love lawyers... :rolleyes:

Sorry Deb :p

Horatio Caine
04-25-2006, 11:25 PM
I hate EU law and this case does nothing good for me :(

Deboogle!.
04-25-2006, 11:28 PM
That is not the kind of lawyer I want to be.. at ALL :o :p :lol:

I dunno the EU's laws, but I don't think a case like this wouldn't pass what we call the "laugh test" in the US.

Sounds to me like Adidas has their panties in a twist for something stupid. It's not the ITF or the Slams' fault if their logo is designed such that it breaks their rules. Everyone associates adidas with the 3 stripes so for them to argue that it's not a logo is just ridiculous.

mangoes
04-25-2006, 11:34 PM
Nevertheless, it's a good attempt by Adidas in spinning this.......... :lol: :lol: :lol: Those lawyers must have been paid quite a bit to come up with this strategy:rolleyes: which can be easily proven false by walking down a road and showing the very said shirts and pants in dispute - minus the 4 inch logo with the name Adidas - to random people and asking them to identify the brand......I'd bet most people would know it's Adidas.........

rofe
04-25-2006, 11:36 PM
That is not the kind of lawyer I want to be.. at ALL :o :p :lol:

I dunno the EU's laws, but I don't think a case like this wouldn't pass what we call the "laugh test" in the US.

Sounds to me like Adidas has their panties in a twist for something stupid. It's not the ITF or the Slams' fault if their logo is designed such that it breaks their rules. Everyone associates adidas with the 3 stripes so for them to argue that it's not a logo is just ridiculous.

I know j/k.

Adidas is just trying to gain some publicity. They are probably smart enough to realize that these tennis governing bodies will not change their rules because other sports companies will counter sue.

blosson
04-25-2006, 11:39 PM
It seems like Adidas wants to keep their 3 stripes in their clothing contesting they are NOT part of the brand but the GS commission thinks otherwise.

I remember a certain athlete in the past who was sponsored by Adidas and when he had to take part in an interntional event together with his country team, he had to switch to another brand during the duration of the event but his sponsor would not allow it and he took part in the event wearing a shirt customised with a sticky tape making up the 3rd Adidas stripe. No need to say that the "other brand" had 2 stripes.

Deboogle!.
04-25-2006, 11:42 PM
Those lawyers must have been paid quite a bit to come up with this strategy:rolleyes: I'm sure :lol:

The thing is... well I dunno how it is in the UK or EU, but in the US you can't just sue for something being unfair. You actually have to have a claim. like, assault, battery, trespass, whatever. I mean the article says they sued for an injunction - but on what grounds? And damages? Huh? How? why? They say "competition rights" - okay. so... like antitrust? Again, it's not the Slams' fault that Adidas's logo is big three stripes stuff. I supose if they're just asking for a declaratory judgment to determine whether the three stripes is part of a design or part of the logo, well then that'd make sense I guess... but that's not what they're asking for so that's moot.

Unless they can prove that the slam committee had adidas in mind and intended to discriminate against it when it formed the rule (which I'd highly doubt), I don't see that they have a leg to stand on.

Too bad, adidas was my favorite sporting brand but this is just lame-o.

Nathaliia
04-25-2006, 11:52 PM
I hate EU law and this case does nothing good for me :(
i'll have it in 2 years :rocker2:

Hank777
04-26-2006, 12:26 AM
The company said the rule "discriminates against Adidas and infringes elementary EU competition rights."

Adidas contended the three stripes running down shirt sleeves or shorts are not a standard logo. It said the official logo is the "performance logo" depicting three stripes arranged in a pyramid with Adidas written underneath.

"We do not want a situation where we see players covered in large numbers of manufacturers' identifications and have large crocodiles and large swooshes," Ritchie said. "If you accept the situation with the three stripes, then you open the floodgates to players being advertising billboards."
Well as lawyer to be, I can say I'm somewhat familiar with EU law, and it's absolutely not laughable, it's a typical chauvinistic US statement. I love the US but EU makes plenty of sense, it's what makes the EU function economically speaking.

Anyway, as far as the claim, I think Adidas has a bit of a weak argument, though "technically speaking" they could be right, it's all up to the judge, funny though the UK is not a EU-member, so that makes it all the more intersting from a jurisdictional point of view.

I think "themed stripes" are not THE LOGO, but "influenced" by it. It's obvious it is from Adidas, but it also true that their logo is the 3 stripes pyramid.

Probably it won't take, EU competition laws usually regard "fair trade regulation" so I don't see that exactly as legislation to put any money on ... :cool:

Intersting article MANGOES, thanks, let's see what happens. Maybe LLEYton's lawyer can help out :p

Deboogle!.
04-26-2006, 12:31 AM
No one said that EU law was laughable, just that viewed under US law, this lawsuit would be laughable.

mangoes
04-26-2006, 12:36 AM
Well as lawyer to be, I can say I'm somewhat familiar with EU law, and it's absolutely not laughable, it's a typical chauvinistic US statement. I love the US but EU makes plenty of sense, it's what makes the EU function economically speaking.

Anyway, as far as the claim, I think Adidas has a bit of a weak argument, though "technically speaking" they could be right, it's all up to the judge, funny though the UK is not a EU-member, so that makes it all the more intersting from a jurisdictional point of view.

I think "themed stripes" are not THE LOGO, but "influenced" by it. It's obvious it is from Adidas, but it also true that their logo is the 3 stripes pyramid.

Probably it won't take, EU competition laws usually regard "fair trade regulation" so I don't see that exactly as legislation to put any money on ... :cool:

Intersting article MANGOES, thanks, let's see what happens. Maybe LLEYton's lawyer can help out :p

Hi Hank777 :wavey:

The themed stripes are part of the Adidas branding, Adidas is saying the three stripes aren't a part of their brand, but a design........BS :rolleyes: Adidas.........I think most people know this so I don't think this stance by Adidas is going to fly in most courts of law......... As I suggested earlier, the atp lawyers can disprove Adidas claim by simply taking a nike designed shirt, putting the three stripes down the side and asking random people to guess the brand of the shirt.........most people will say Adidas based on the three stripes, even though they may have recognized the Nike design...... I'm curious as to if the three stripes are trademarked by Adidas......I suppose I can go look it up, but, I don't care for the extra work :lol:

Deboogle!.
04-26-2006, 12:42 AM
mangoes dear, your wish is my command

http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=78539734
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=78539470
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=76535511
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=74653303
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=74653302
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=74653301
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=74653296

Scotso
04-26-2006, 12:45 AM
I agree with Adidas. If the three stripes aren't going to be allowed, then all shirt manufacturers will just have to put out white shirts for the players with little logos being the only thing that differenciates them, because shirt designs are unique to the company making them.

mangoes
04-26-2006, 12:56 AM
mangoes dear, your wish is my command

http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=78539734
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=78539470
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=76535511
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=74653303
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=74653302
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=74653301
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=74653296


Thanks Deb :lol: :lol: :lol: It's trademarked!! Soooooooo, what exactly is the basis for their suit??? :rolleyes: To stall? A publicity stunt?

Hank777
04-26-2006, 12:59 AM
Hi Hank777

The themed stripes are part of the Adidas branding, Adidas is saying the three stripes aren't a part of their brand, but a design........BS Adidas.........I think most people know this so I don't think this stance by Adidas is going to fly in most courts of law......... As I suggested earlier, the atp lawyers can disprove Adidas claim by simply taking a nike designed shirt, putting the three stripes down the side and asking random people to guess the brand of the shirt.........most people will say Adidas based on the three stripes, even though they may have recognized the Nike design...... I'm curious as to if the three stripes are trademarked by Adidas......I suppose I can go look it up, but, I don't care for the extra work Oh hey look, I don't think THEYLL WIN IT :D but I can see how they could at least give it a shot.

BTW it's not like that really, cuz it's more like; if nike was to make a shirt and have nikey-like eyebrow or v-thing (the nike logo) shapes on a shirt, they'd be RIGHT by claiming it is NOT the "official logo" but ... hey everyone will DUH that ... saying, it's obv. Nike.

Cool work DEBRA, kudos for looking that up, ARE we NOT the biggest of NERDS :) :D :cool:

Hank777
04-26-2006, 01:03 AM
Oh wow, I hadn't seen they were all different, wow that does change things, does are all registered ... that's really surprising ... but would make ADIDAS 's case rather bleak.

Typical though, I remember something in European law about "certain logo or similar having to "add something specific or un-generic" before it could be registered, must have gotten that wrong though ... :confused: not so sure.

Anyway, it's obvious that seeing the shirt we're talking about and logo's would help .. Anyone :wavey: ?

Deboogle!.
04-26-2006, 01:20 AM
Thanks Deb :lol: :lol: :lol: It's trademarked!! Soooooooo, what exactly is the basis for their suit??? :rolleyes: To stall? A publicity stunt?Well, those are US Trademarks (and those I pasted aren't even all of them), so they wouldn't be persuasive in UK/EU courts. However if I'm the Slams'/ITF's lawyers I'm gonna say "hello they think these stripes are so important to their corporate success in the US that they've registered them on all their articles of clothing" - again I dunno the UK/EU laws being brought up (we don't even know which laws they're even trying to invoke), but I think it's hard to argue those stripes are not some kind of logo, even if it's not their "real" logo. But unless the UK/EU laws allow for speculative or unproven damages, I don't see what kind of damages they could possibly be asking for, since this new rule does not even go into effect for 2 more months! Cool work DEBRA, kudos for looking that up, ARE we NOT the biggest of NERDS :) :D :cool:Well, what's sad is that I'd rather look those up (not that it took long - maybe 90 seconds :p) than study the actual US trademark laws, which I actually have to know soon. :o

Merton
04-26-2006, 01:23 AM
It seems some Adidas lawyers have too much time on their hands so they must demonstrate they are doing something :lol:

mangoes
04-26-2006, 01:47 AM
Well, those are US Trademarks (and those I pasted aren't even all of them), so they wouldn't be persuasive in UK/EU courts. However if I'm the Slams'/ITF's lawyers I'm gonna say "hello they think these stripes are so important to their corporate success in the US that they've registered them on all their articles of clothing" - again I dunno the UK/EU laws being brought up (we don't even know which laws they're even trying to invoke), but I think it's hard to argue those stripes are not some kind of logo, even if it's not their "real" logo. But unless the UK/EU laws allow for speculative or unproven damages, I don't see what kind of damages they could possibly be asking for, since this new rule does not even go into effect for 2 more months! Well, what's sad is that I'd rather look those up (not that it took long - maybe 90 seconds :p) than study the actual US trademark laws, which I actually have to know soon. :o

Well, if it's trademarked in the US, I'm pretty sure it's trademarked internationally, but, as you said, we don't know the UK law, but my understanding is that they're planning to sue the USTA/US Open.......... But, this is legal stuff and not my area, but the three stipes are part of the Adidas brand so I'm curious to read their position on this when the court papers are made public......... Anyway, I'll ask someone at work tomorrow about this and PM you the answer..........

Deboogle!.
04-26-2006, 01:53 AM
Well, if it's trademarked in the US, I'm pretty sure it's trademarked internationally, but, as you said, we don't know the UK law, but my understanding is that they're planning to sue the USTA/US Open.......... But, this is legal stuff and not my area, but the three stipes are part of the Adidas brand so I'm curious to read their position on this when the court papers are made public......... Anyway, I'll ask someone at work tomorrow about this and PM you the answer..........well my point was more that being trademarked may not preclude whatever claim they're trying to assert - and since we don't even know specifically what they're suing over and I don't know the laws over there, it's hard to say. I mean trademark isn't synonymous with "logo" so who knows what the law would say, I have no clue. It just seems silly from a common sense standpoint.

mangoes
04-26-2006, 02:58 AM
well my point was more that being trademarked may not preclude whatever claim they're trying to assert - and since we don't even know specifically what they're suing over and I don't know the laws over there, it's hard to say. I mean trademark isn't synonymous with "logo" so who knows what the law would say, I have no clue. It just seems silly from a common sense standpoint.

True........well, we'll just have to wait to see Adidas' angle for this suit...... :)

Good night :wavey:

Jairus
04-26-2006, 06:52 AM
So wait...If I make pants with three long stripes...thats trademarked to Adidas? I always thought their only logo was the triangle, not just general stripes. Wow, who knew.