Posts Tagged: "Puma"

Few events capture the attention of the world like the Olympic Games. Around the globe and across the country, people tune in nightly to watch their nation’s athletes compete for a spot on the medal stand. But behind the breathtaking gymnastics performances and thrilling swimming races is some of the most valuable intellectual property in sports. And the United States Olympic & Paralympic Committee (USOPC)—the organizing body in charge of the nation’s Olympic efforts—is just as serious about defending its trademarks as it is about bringing home the gold.

Sports and fashion company Puma has lost an appeal before the EU General Court, following an eight-year dispute. The trademark case concerned figurative signs depicting leaping cats, and the judgment was published on May 19 (Case T-510/19). Puma, based in Germany, filed an opposition to an EU trademark (EUTM) application filed by Gemma Group in February 2013 for “Machines for processing of wood; machines for processing aluminum; machines for treatment of PVC” in class 7. The application depicted a blue cat leaping from left to right. Puma owns earlier marks for a cat leaping from right to left, registered for a wide range of goods including clothes, accessories and sports equipment.

What comes to mind when you read these city/year combinations: London 2012. Sochi 2014. Sydney 2000. Did you immediately think of the Olympics? The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and its Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) believe you did. In 1999, the Board held that the primary significance of “Sydney 2000” is a reference to the Olympics held in Sydney, Australia in 2000 and affirmed the USPTO’s refusal to register a Sydney 2000 mark because the mark falsely suggested a connection with the Olympics. In re Urbano, 51 U.S.P.Q.2d 1776 (T.T.A.B. 1999). Thus, the mark violated Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1052(a), and was not registrable. More than two decades later, the same question is before a federal district court in Colorado, home to the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee (USOPC). The sports apparel and equipment company PUMA SE filed applications in the USPTO to register trademarks consisting of its PUMA mark combined with cities and years for which Olympic Games will be held: PUMA TOKYO 2021, PUMA BEIJING 2022 and PUMA PARIS 2024, for bags, clothing and sports equipment. When the USPTO refused registration of each application based on likelihood of confusion and false connection with the USOPC’s TOKYO 2020, BEIJING 2022 and PARIS 2024 marks, PUMA initiated cancellation proceedings against the USOPC’s trademarks.

Recently, Denmark-based footwear maker ECCO filed a suit alleging claims of patent infringement against Manhattan Beach, CA-based shoemaker Skechers. The suit, filed in the federal district for Delaware, asserts a series of patents owned by the Danish shoemaker which cover aspects of golf shoes which have been commercially successful for ECCO in recent years. According to ECCO’s complaint, the alleged claims of infringement by Skechers involve the particular cleat arrangement as well as the structure of the cleats used in the sole in the golf shoes, which are covered by ECCO’s patents.

Nike is also asserting one patent related to its Nike Air technology, a footwear sole structure designed to protect an athlete’s joints and muscles from impact forces. U.S. Patent No. 7401420, titled Article of Footwear Having a Fluid-Filled Bladder with a Reinforcing Structure. Issued in July 2008, it claims an article of footwear with a sole structure having a bladder enclosing a fluid that provides an outward force on a first surface and a reinforcing structure extending around a portion of the bladder. Nike alleges that Puma first began infringing on the ‘420 patent in November 2017 when it released Jamming footwear that incorporated a fluid-filled bladder for foot support.

Like other opinions in the IP arena, the Supreme Court’s decision in Star Athletica v. Varsity Brands has created a new legal rule with limited practical guidance that will inevitably lead to less predictability in an already-murky area of copyright law.  Its new “imaginative separability” test for copyright eligibility for useful articles, such as footwear, clothing, and furniture, may be so easy that few designs will fail to qualify.  Yet, ultimately, Star Athletica may have the unimagined consequence of making copyright protection less desirable for qualifying designs. For those who seek the benefits of the Court’s undeniable expansion of potential copyright protection for useful designs, a bit of caution may be the appropriate response.