Nike Forced to Manufacture Signature adidas Design Element

[ForwardProgress]

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.

So if you were a diehard Ford fan and hated Chevy but were forced to have a Chevy bow tie bumper sticker on the back of your Mustang, you'd be cool with that?

[the_grateful_ted]

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.

So if you were a diehard Ford fan and hated Chevy but were forced to have a Chevy bow tie bumper sticker on the back of your Mustang, you'd be cool with that?

Yes. I probably wouldn't even notice.

[PaleVermilion81]

Nike forced to make socks with 3 stripes?!

[officeglenn]

I think what this boils down to is that stripes — whether it's two, three or five — have become such a generic design element that adidas would not be able to protect it in court if they challenged it. As this article on the O'Neills vs adidas situation mentions:

Another reason why a trademark would not be protected is if it becomes too generic a mark. There are many examples of this happening such as Hoover, Sellotape and Blu Tack which all began as trademarked goods but due to over-use of the terms, they have become generic ways of describing the goods. ...

In the [irish] Supreme Court case, O’Neills claimed that people have been using stripes on sporting goods for a long time for fashion reasons and therefore it is a generic mark that doesn’t warrant protection from the court. Chief Justice O’Higgins was inclined to agree with them and said that as he has seen kids playing football wearing socks and shorts with one to five stripes as a fashion design, why should Adidas be exclusively allowed to use the three stripes design.

Examples of trademarks becoming generic that might be more familiar to North American audiences would include Kleenex, Xerox, aspirin, escalator, laundromat, Thermos and trampoline.

While that ruling really only applies in Ireland, it pretty much sets a benchmark that stripes are generic design elements. So as much as adidas might want to take legal action to prevent the Patriots from having three stripes on their Nike-manufactured socks, the precedent has been set and adidas would probably lose in court.

However, stripes being classified as generic could also work in adidas's favour, allowing them to skirt or challenge restrictions on sponsors' or manufacturers' marks that some leagues or sporting organizations impose.

[jrodsep]

I'm just here to say that those throwbacks are absolutely gorgeous.

[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.

So if you were a diehard Ford fan and hated Chevy but were forced to have a Chevy bow tie bumper sticker on the back of your Mustang, you'd be cool with that?

No, I'm saying each parallel you're trying to draw is sillier than the last. Up to and including this one.

Three simple stripes, out of context, is too generic to be "owned" by Adidas as you suggest.

[WavePunter]

Firstly, Adidas has not been producing footwear and apparel since before WWII, considering Adidas didn't exist until 1949...

adidas manufactured the boots for Hitler's army during World War II.

False.. Adidas DID NOT EXIST until 1949 (after the war and Hitler's death).. Perhaps you're referring to Gebrüder Dassler Schuhfabrik, the company owned by the Dassler brothers, Adolf and Rudolf.. It remained as such until 1947, when the brothers split up and Rudolf Dassler started Puma, while Adolf "Adi" DASsler created Adidas, (formally registered in August of 1949).. They never registered any trademarks until 1954.. Not that your incorrect details make your entire argument wrong, it certainly doesn't help.. Also, as several people have pointed out, the WAY the stripes are applied has a lot to do with it (such as down the arm as Adidas has done for decades, vs a sleeve cuff).. Three "rings" around a sock, used as a decorative element, aren't automatically Adidas's trademark "three stripes".. Especially when used as a traditional design element.

Additionally, the stripes are NOT around the top of the socks like Adidas's signature soccer socks.. The patriots stripes are in the middle of the socks (or "mid-shin" to clarify), so again, they are applied in a manner not confused with Adidas's existing style and branding..

So, so I think Adidas may have intentionally slipped a reference to their brand into the patriots uniform in the form of a general design element? Sure, that truly seems very likely..

But do I think they have any real grounds to make it an issue? No, not in this particular situation.

I think Adidas may very well have their chuckles at how they put one over on Nike and how Nike is being forced to give Adidas free marketing and advertisement by manufacturing the socks, but I also think Nike gets the last laugh with all the money they're making from the NFL contract, so it's a wash at best for Adidas.

[MJWalker45]

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?

O'Neills is an Irish sports clothing manufacturer. I believe the two teams are playing Hurling. It's like rugby, baseball and soccer mixed together but much older.

[WSU151]

Adidas must have been laughing hardcore in the 80s when the Sabres wore these socks...whoever made these socks (CCM, pre-acquisition??) must have been like "OITGDNHL do we give free advertising to adidas."

Funny, I did not find any stories about adidas suing the Buffalo Sabres, despite the team wearing the trademarked three stripes on the socks.

I whole-heartedly encourage ForwardProgress to actually do some real academic research on how trademark law works. Or, at the very least, do a Google image search for "Three striped tube socks" and just take a glance at how common three stripes are, and the three-striped sock really isn't a signature design element for adidas. Again...as everyone as been trying to tell you...it's just a generic sock pattern.

[WSU151]

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.

Whoops. Try again, boss.

http://www.eastbay.com/product/model:207101/sku:5130121/adidas-team-speed-traxion-crew-socks/black/red/?cm=

[guest23]

bottom line is there's nothing proprietary about the 3 stripes so anybody can use them as a design element

[ForwardProgress]

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.

So if you were a diehard Ford fan and hated Chevy but were forced to have a Chevy bow tie bumper sticker on the back of your Mustang, you'd be cool with that?

Yes. I probably wouldn't even notice.

Just because YOU don't notice doesn't mean it's not there and other people won't notice.

Also, even if people don't notice consciously, their subconscious will still notice. That's how subliminal advertising works. So I would even go so far as to say that the three stripes on the Patriots' road socks are a subliminal advertisement for adidas on a Nike manufactured uniform. And apparently Nike is cool with that. How else do you explain their continued existence three to four years after Nike started making the uniform. The three stripes are basically a vestigial leftover from when the Pats' current uniform set was first designed and debuted by adidas in the year 2000. And Nike hasn't done a damn thing about it. You sure as hell know they tried though. Do the three stripes remain because like most of you they consider three stripes on a sock to be just three stripes on a sock and not a symbol of adidas? I highly doubt that. How else can you explain the fact that Nike, Puma, Converse, and Reebok before adidas owned them NEVER manufactured and sold athletic socks to the public with three stripes on them? (Prove me wrong, I dare you.) Because adidas, their competitor, markets itself as "The Brand With The Three Stripes". That is their official slogan and can not be disputed.

It is out of respect for the competitor and to avoid brand confusion and a possible lawsuit, that's why the big name brands don't sell triple striped socks. Yeah, like you guys say, they may be able to do it legally and get away with it because, according to you guys, three stripes on a sock is just a generic design element. So if the big brands could do it and get away with it legally, why don't they?

[ForwardProgress]

No, I'm saying each parallel you're trying to draw is sillier than the last. Up to and including this one.

Three simple stripes, out of context, is too generic to be "owned" by Adidas as you suggest.

I didn't take anything out of context. All my three stripe arguments were within the realms of athletic apparel. I never suggested adidas owned three stripes on every product they could possibly appear on.

Even if it did come across that I was claiming adidas owned three horizontally parallel stripes of equal thickness in all applications, WavePunter did the grunt work and found out that the adidas three stripe trademark only applies to *VERTICALLY* placed stripes, like how they place them on jerseys, shorts, and pants (think early 80's tracksuits).

So adidas doesn't own three horizontally parallel stripes of equal thickness after all, but that still doesn't explain why all the big name athletic apparel companies have never manufactured and sold to the public socks with three stripes. I challenge anyone to prove me wrong on this fact. (K-Mart, Sears, etc don't count).

[ForwardProgress]

Firstly, Adidas has not been producing footwear and apparel since before WWII, considering Adidas didn't exist until 1949...

adidas manufactured the boots for Hitler's army during World War II.

False.. Adidas DID NOT EXIST until 1949 (after the war and Hitler's death).. Perhaps you're referring to Gebrüder Dassler Schuhfabrik, the company owned by the Dassler brothers, Adolf and Rudolf.. It remained as such until 1947, when the brothers split up and Rudolf Dassler started Puma, while Adolf "Adi" DASsler created Adidas, (formally registered in August of 1949).. They never registered any trademarks until 1954.. Not that your incorrect details make your entire argument wrong, it certainly doesn't help.. Also, as several people have pointed out, the WAY the stripes are applied has a lot to do with it (such as down the arm as Adidas has done for decades, vs a sleeve cuff).. Three "rings" around a sock, used as a decorative element, aren't automatically Adidas's trademark "three stripes".. Especially when used as a traditional design element.

Additionally, the stripes are NOT around the top of the socks like Adidas's signature soccer socks.. The patriots stripes are in the middle of the socks (or "mid-shin" to clarify), so again, they are applied in a manner not confused with Adidas's existing style and branding..

So, so I think Adidas may have intentionally slipped a reference to their brand into the patriots uniform in the form of a general design element? Sure, that truly seems very likely..

But do I think they have any real grounds to make it an issue? No, not in this particular situation.

I think Adidas may very well have their chuckles at how they put one over on Nike and how Nike is being forced to give Adidas free marketing and advertisement by manufacturing the socks, but I also think Nike gets the last laugh with all the money they're making from the NFL contract, so it's a wash at best for Adidas.

You make a lot of solid points and you are actually doing research. Well said and good work.

It seems like you are actually on my side WavePunter, so I am sorry if the following sounds rude, but what I meant by saying adidas manufactured the boots for Hitler's army during World War II is that the same *PEOPLE* who started adidas, and in essence the company that evolved into adidas, were the ones to manufacture the boots.

I have read books on this subject, I know all about how the brothers split a town in half with an adidas factory on one side and a Puma factory on the other. It's just a lot simpler to say adidas made the boots for Hitler's army. It's the watered down, attention-getting version of what happened because most people don't have the attention span for the full story. And quite frankly Gebrüder Dassler Schuhfabrik is too much of a mouthful and too hard to pronounce LOL!!!

[TheRicSlick]

You should really let this thread die.

[ForwardProgress]

Adidas must have been laughing hardcore in the 80s when the Sabres wore these socks...whoever made these socks (CCM, pre-acquisition??) must have been like "OITGDNHL do we give free advertising to adidas."

Funny, I did not find any stories about adidas suing the Buffalo Sabres, despite the team wearing the trademarked three stripes on the socks.

I whole-heartedly encourage ForwardProgress to actually do some real academic research on how trademark law works. Or, at the very least, do a Google image search for "Three striped tube socks" and just take a glance at how common three stripes are, and the three-striped sock really isn't a signature design element for adidas. Again...as everyone as been trying to tell you...it's just a generic sock pattern.

Like I'm going to waste my time and do "real academic research" just to settle an internet debate?

If this was my Masters Thesis, yeah, I would do that, but honestly I have better things to do.

Anyway I already admitted that adidas doesn't own three horizontally parallel stripes of equal thickness on athletic socks, sports uniforms, or athletic apparel. But what no one else has explained is why the big name sports clothing companies have NEVER made and sold to the public socks with three stripes on them. If you can show me pictures of socks with three stripes on them that were made by Nike, Puma, Converse, or Reebok (before adidas bought them) that were sold in stores to the public, than I rest my case. (K-Mart, Sears, and department store brands don't count).

And those Sabres socks: don't two sets of three stripes basically make them socks with six stripes and not three, basically making them not relevant to the subject we are discussing?

[ForwardProgress]

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.

Whoops. Try again, boss.

http://www.eastbay.com/product/model:207101/sku:5130121/adidas-team-speed-traxion-crew-socks/black/red/?cm=

How long did it take for you to find those, boss?

Seriously, I want to know, boss. Be honest, boss.

How long did you scour the internet just to prove me wrong, boss?

Because that is the first time I have ever seen the three stripes be different colors, and those socks look like a very new product, "new" as in first appeared in 2015 or 2016, boss.

Show me some adidas branded products with three stripes that aren't the same color from the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's, 00's. Good luck because I doubt they exist, boss.

[ForwardProgress]

bottom line is there's nothing proprietary about the 3 stripes so anybody can use them as a design element

Except Nike, Puma, Converse, and Reebok before adidas owned them.

Hell, Reebok still doesn't use them and adidas owns the brand!

Brand confusion is a bad thing. For everyone.

You should really let this thread die.

Why? I'm having too much fun!

[ConcreteCharlie]

aw christ he's back

[pcgd]

Adidas' sideline product for sometime had a different color middle stripe because the NCAA considered it branding and it was a compromise. Those socks were part of that.

And there is a difference between Nike and UA using 3 striped socks and Payless doing it. Nike doesn't want that affiliation while Payless (and others) do.

This 10 year article has some good info about the lawsuits filed.

http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/stories/2006-04-27/much-ado-about-adidas-stripes.html