Nike Forced to Manufacture Signature adidas Design Element

[ForwardProgress]

so my hypothetical company can register headspoon piping as their trademark, and from that point on, only my company can make uniforms with headspoon piping? Thats the logic you're using

Hell, adidas sued a company because they were using TWO stripes on their products, and you know what? Adidas won!

adidas was able to trademark the three stripes because in the late 1940's no other company had put three stripes on footwear, shirts, shorts, and pants in the areas that they did and in the way they did, making it a unique design element and therefore an identifier of their brand.

Fun fact, O'Neills still uses three stripes on their jerseys and products (tracksuits etc.). They beat Adidas in court too:

That is a fascinating story and I'd love to learn more about it but I don't even know what sport those men are playing in your photo LOL!!!

By all means though tell me more about this lawsuit that adidas lost!

Is "O'Neills" the name of the yellow team or green team? The funny thing is, both teams are wearing three stripes on both their jerseys and shorts.

Were three stripes part of the O'Neills uniform before adidas trademarked the three stripes and is that why they won the case when adidas sued them for trademark infringement?

[ForwardProgress]

Its just socks man

You might notice the Patriots socks if suddenly they decided to wear neon green and hot pink zebra print socks in their next game.

You wouldn't though, because they're just socks.

And all the Denver Broncos fans who burned the yellow and brown vertically striped socks they wore in the early 60's... yeah, they weren't angry about them or anything.

Because, like you said, they're just socks.

[ForwardProgress]

Adidas 3 stripes aren't as much about 3 stripes as the usage of the stripes. The reason they can go after companies that use 2 or 4 stripes is because those companies clearly are using them in the same way adidas has done for decades in an effort to confuse the customer or at least sell product that appears to be adidas product. Its very case by case, as I think you'll find 2 stripe track suits without any issue, but you won't find 4 stripe shoes at Payless, and K-Swiss is just fine with 5 stripes. So its very case by case.

The O'Neill thing only applies to Ireland. O'Neill also sells "international" versions of their kits because adidas has the trademark across most of the rest of the world.

Another fun fact, adidas actually bought the 3 stripes trademark from a Finnish sportswear company in 1951.

"You'll find 2 stripe track suits without any issue"

As previously stated elsewhere in this thread adidas sued another company that was putting 2 stripes on their products, and adidas won.

If adidas own the three stripe trademark across most of the world, how can O'Neill sell an "international" version of their kit? Wouldn't that limit them to only selling an Ireland kit? Or is O'Neill using "international" as a generic term to describe a generic jersey in O'Neill colors and with O'Neill logos and sponsor logos?

What was the name of the Finnish sportswear company that adidas bought the three stripe trademark from in 1951?

ForwardProgress is a poster to watch in 2016.

Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[TornadoGTS]

That is a fascinating story and I'd love to learn more about it but I don't even know what sport those men are playing in your photo LOL!!!

By all means though tell me more about this lawsuit that adidas lost!

Is "O'Neills" the name of the yellow team or green team? The funny thing is, both teams are wearing three stripes on both their jerseys and shorts.

Were three stripes part of the O'Neills uniform before adidas trademarked the three stripes and is that why they won the case when adidas sued them for trademark infringement?

O'Neills isnt a team, its a sportswear provider like adidas

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Neills

[ForwardProgress]

I find their overuse of the stripes in soccer to be intrusive and annoying, but other sports have resisted. There were a few adidas teams in the NFL in the late 90's before the NFL went to a single supplier and none used the 3 stripes except this one part of New England's unis. Did adidas put the three stripes on the Patriots' road socks on purpose? Probably. Or it could've been a coincidence because they matched the Pats use of 3 stripes from their throwbacks. White socks in the NFL need to have stripes so they had to have something and stripes that matched the side panels would've looked better so it's likely that the three stripes were a product placement that adidas was able to slip by the Patriots and NFL. It's not as cut and dry as you think.

Why Nike and Reebok haven't cared to update those socks to removed adidas' "trademark" is probably because they either don't care with their actual logos appearing on both shoulders, all sideline apparel, wristbands etc etc. Or the Patriots have asked them to continue making the socks that way because they've had so much success in that uniform as is. Remember, the Patriots are also one of the few teams who told Nike to go love themselves with their toilet seat collars. It's not crazy to believe the Patriots told Reebok and Nike not to touch their uniforms (save the matte gray pants from Nike).

The Patriots didn't have throwbacks in 2000 when the three stripe road socks debuted. After that season the first year they had throwbacks was 2002. So I highly doubt the three stripes were added to the socks to make them match a throwback uniform when they wouldn't be wearing a throwback uniform for another three years.

I completely agree that all white socks in an NFL uniform would look terrible so yeah, while designing the road uniform something had to be added to the socks to make them look better. I don't know if the three stripes had to be "slipped" by the Patriots and the NFL because the Pats' owner Robert Kraft is very soccer aware as he also owns the New England Revolution soccer team and they play at the same stadium as the Patriots. So someone that into soccer would have definitely noticed adidas' signature design element on the road socks when the new uniforms were first presented to him. So obviously he was cool with it, otherwise he would have demanded that the design of the socks be changed.

Side note: the Patriots are actually my favorite NFL team and I never noticed that their home pants changed from silver to matte gray after Nike took over. Where the hell have I been???? I wish this difference was pointed out on gridiron-uniforms.com because there is no way of telling this based on the color they use for these pants; the pre 2012 and 2012 and after home pants are the same exact color.

[Gothamite]

So wait, what was this guy's excuse?

[MDGP]

So wait, what was this guy's excuse?

Not the answer, but he actually endorsed adidas, and even sued them for violating use of his name.

[ForwardProgress]

Why were the 49ers allowed to wear three stripes if adidas trademarked the stripes in 1949? That's kind of where your argument falls apart, unless adidas sued the team every year since 1950, when the 49ers added the three "trademarked" stripes.

Hey guys...here's the real reason....it matches the old sock stripes...case closed.

I'm surprised adidas didn't sue the Patriots for using those socks...because it's a clear violation on the trademark..lolz...

Anyway, the reason Nike hasn't changed the socks is because the casual fan doesn't look at the Patriots away uniform and says "Oh, man, I didn't know the Patriots wore adidas socks!! That's SICK! I'm gonna go buy 18 pairs of adidas socks and a whole bunch more adidas stuff right now." In fact, 99.999 percent of football fans probably don't even notice, and if they do notice, they probably don't care a whole lot. Three stripes in football is somewhat common. Football socks are not big sellers on the NFL store.

The 49ers were allowed to wear three stripes on their jerseys after adidas trademarked them in 1949 because at the time adidas was just a German *athletic shoe* company and it took many years before they registered their trademark in almost every country on the planet for other products they ended up making. I don't know the exact year they registered the three stripes in the U.S. but I know for sure it was after 1949.

Plus, adidas would have no reason to sue an American football team with three stripes on the jersey sleeves in 1950 because the NFL wasn't selling jerseys to fans back then and especially not in Europe. Moreover, adidas hadn't established itself as an athletic apparel company in addition to athletic shoe company in America yet and weren't in the business of making American football cleats or uniforms.

adidas' three stripes are always the same color on the product they appear on, hence the reason why they didn't sue the Patriots for having red / blue / red stripes on their white throwback socks or on the original uniforms the throwbacks represented.

I wouldn't say three stripes, the exact way they are presented by adidas in their trademark, are common in football. *STRIPES* are, but there are countless variations and combinations and places to put them on a football uniform, and three stripes as they appear on adidas products and apparel hardly ever appear on American football uniforms. So that's what makes the Patriots triple stripe road socks so unique and makes them stand out, both aesthetically and as a symbol of the brand that originally put them there.

Yes, football socks aren't big sellers, but how would you feel if your clothing brand had to manufacture the signature design element of your competitor and include it on the uniforms of probably your most high profile team?

That's like Ford being forced to put a Chevy bow tie on the back of the Mustang for the last four years. The word "Chevy" doesn't appear anywhere on the car, but everybody who sees the bow tie will think Chevy, even though the Ford logo is on the grill. To make this apply to the Patriots uniforms, the Ford logo on the grill is Nike and the Chevy bow tie on the back is the adidas three stripes on the socks. Even though the word "adidas" isn't printed on the socks, the three stripes still say adidas to people who are familiar with the brand. Just like how the Chevy bow tie still says Chevy without the word "Chevy" printed above or below it. I really hope this drives home the point I'm trying to make here.

[oldschoolvikings]

The next time I feel like I'm being annoying by posting on this site about something minor and making it out to be a federal case, I'll come back to this thread to make myself feel better.

[ForwardProgress]

Because Reebok(and Nike) work for the teams(league), not the other way around.

That doesn't rule out the possibility that Nike could force it's will on the NFL and its teams though.

Who do you think came up with the Color Rush concept? The No Fun League, or Nike?

I seriously doubt all the rich old men who own NFL teams are exactly aware of, or even follow, all the hip new trends in both the fashion and athletic apparel worlds. They're not exactly known to be on the cutting edge of clothing. They are very conservative people, why do you think it took this long before they did something about the 99.9% success rate of extra point attempts?

Nike, however, is well known for revolutionary ideas and products and thumbing it's nose at the establishment. So that's why I find it so surprising that the adidas triple stripe still remains on the Patriots road socks four years after Nike got the NFL uniform contract.

There had to have been some kind of confrontation between Nike VIP's and Robert Kraft (the Patriots owner) over this. Nike just letting it go and going along with what the Patriots want is NOT how Nike works, especially when what the Patriots wanted was free advertising for Nike's competitor. So that is why I'm so curious about this whole situation, it's just not something Nike would be cool with doing.

[ConcreteCharlie]

What point are you trying to make exactly? You seem very angry that Nike is making these socks when they have no choice.

[ForwardProgress]

To paraphrase Sigmund Freud: Sometimes sock stripes are just sock stripes.

Not when adidas manufactured the uniform set they first appeared in.

[oldschoolvikings]

[ForwardProgress]

So wait, what was this guy's excuse?

The 49ers were allowed to wear three stripes on their jerseys after adidas trademarked them in 1949 because at the time adidas was just a German *athletic shoe* company and it took many years before they registered their trademark in almost every country on the planet for other products they ended up making. I don't know the exact year they registered the three stripes in the U.S. but I know for sure it was after 1949.

Plus, adidas would have no reason to sue an American football team with three stripes on the jersey sleeves in 1950 because the NFL wasn't selling jerseys to fans back then and especially not in Europe. Moreover, adidas hadn't established itself as an athletic apparel company in addition to athletic shoe company in America yet and weren't in the business of making American football cleats or uniforms.

[ForwardProgress]

The next time I feel like I'm being annoying by posting on this site about something minor and making it out to be a federal case, I'll come back to this thread to make myself feel better.

It's like Ford being forced to put a Chevy bow tie on the back of the Mustang for the last four years. The word "Chevy" doesn't appear anywhere on the car, but everybody who sees the bow tie will think Chevy, even though the Ford logo is on the grill. To make this apply to the Patriots uniforms, the Ford logo on the grill is Nike and the Chevy bow tie on the back is the adidas three stripes on the socks. Even though the word "adidas" isn't printed on the socks, the three stripes still say adidas to people who are familiar with the brand. Just like how the Chevy bow tie still says Chevy without the word "Chevy" printed above or below it. I really hope this drives home the point I'm trying to make here.

[ConcreteCharlie]

Nobody respond from this point on. Just let him have this. Maybe he'll go away

[ForwardProgress]

What point are you trying to make exactly? You seem very angry that Nike is making these socks when they have no choice.

I'm not angry, I just find the whole situation fascinating and very un-Nike like.

Here's an analogy that sums up everything I'm trying to say:

This situation is like Ford being forced to put a Chevy bow tie on the back of the Mustang for the last four years. The word "Chevy" doesn't appear anywhere on the car, but everybody who sees the bow tie will think Chevy, even though the Ford logo is on the grill. To make this apply to the Patriots uniforms, the Ford logo on the grill is Nike and its swooshes and the Chevy bow tie on the back is the adidas three stripes on the socks. Even though the word "adidas" isn't printed on the socks, the three stripes still say adidas to people who are familiar with the brand. Just like how the Chevy bow tie still says Chevy without the word "Chevy" printed above or below it. I really hope this drives home the point I'm trying to make here.

[TheRicSlick]

Jesus, all this over socks.

[Gothamite]

I really hope this drives home the point I'm trying to make here.

I don't think there's anyone here who doesn't understand the point you're trying to make.

I just find the arguments unpersuasive. Long, but unpersuasive.

[ForwardProgress]

Jesus, all this over socks.

It's not just socks, it's about one clothing company being forced to manufacture the registered trademark of a competitor and include it on the uniforms of its most high profile team.

Regardless of that, try wearing the same shoes for three weeks straight with no socks, you'll appreciate socks a whole lot more after that, trust me.