We admit we are talking about Adidas a lot lately, but that is because (i) we truly love their gear, and (ii) they have really been active.
After some bruising encounters with United States trademark law, Adidas SA recently found itself on the ropes again, this time at the hands of a church in Zion, Illinois. The marks in question are a study in phonics:
ZAGREB , CROATIA – 19 FEBRUARY 2015 – Close up logo of sport brand Adidas printed on textile , product shot
ADIZERO running shoes by Adidas vs. ADD A ZERO hats by Christian Faith Fellowship.
In 2005 a small congregation by the name of Christian Faith Fellowship, based in Zion, Illinois, registered a wordmark and a logo mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office for hats emblazoned with the phrase “ADD A ZERO.” The hats were not a big seller, with only two of them recorded as being sold-critically, with one being paid for by a check drawn on a Wisconsin bank.
In 2009, Adidas was ready to roll out its new, lightweight running shoes, which it dubbed “ADIZERO.” Upon petitioning the USPTO for protection, Adidas’ claim was denied based on the the existence of Christian Faith Fellowship’s prior registration. The USPTO found there to be a likelihood of confusion.
Adidas appealed this decision to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB), arguing that Christian Faith Fellowship’s hats are not a source identifier and that they had sold a very limited number of the hats without showing any significant use in commerce which generally denotes interstate commerce. Christian Faith Fellowship then produced the Wisconsin bank check mentioned earlier, claiming that it indeed had engaged in interstate commerce, even if only for two sales. The TTAB ultimately decided in favor of Adidas, citing the small number of hats that were sold.
Christian Faith Fellowship appealed the TTAB’s decision and found itself battling Adidas before the Federal Circuit. In an effort to get the case thrown out, Adidas argued for a de minimis exception because only two hats had been sold, and Christian Faith Fellowship did not truly engage in interstate commerce. Its argument was denied and the court went on to nullify the TTAB’s decision because case law was clear that the sale of two hats was sufficient to establish interstate commerce.
The circuit court remanded the case back to the TTAB where it is currently under review.
This case is interesting because many practitioners disagree with the Federal Circuit’s ruling. They say it sets a very low standard for interstate commerce and sets up too many obstacles for large producers of trademarked products. What’s your ruling?
Crypto Enforcement: A Former Prosecutor’s Warning to Criminals and the Public
Cryptocurrency intimidates most people. The reason is straightforward. People fear what they do not understand. When confusion sets in, the common reaction is either to ignore the subject entirely or to mistrust it. For years, that is exactly how most of the public and even many in law enforcement treated cryptocurrency. However, such apprehension changed […]
Understanding Chattel Paper: A Key Component in Secured Transactions
Using chattel paper to obtain a security interest in personal property is a powerful tool. It can ensure lenders have a legal claim on collateral ranging from inventory to intellectual property. To reduce risk and protect your legal rights, businesses and lenders should understand the legal framework. This framework governs the creation, sale, and enforcement […]
For years, digital assets operated in a legal gray area, a frontier where innovation outpaced the reach of regulators and law enforcement. In this early “Wild West” phase of finance, crypto startups thrived under minimal oversight. That era, however, is coming to an end. The importance of crypto compliance has become paramount as cryptocurrency has […]
Supreme Court and Title VII: Implications for Reverse Discrimination
Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services vitiating the so-called “background circumstances” test required by half of federal circuit courts.1 The background circumstances test required majority group plaintiffs pleading discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to meet a heightened pleading standard […]
Special purpose acquisition companies (better known as SPACs) appear to be making a comeback. SPAC offerings for 2025 have already nearly surpassed last year’s totals, with additional transactions in the pipeline. SPACs last experienced a boom between 2020–2021, with approximately 600 U.S. companies raising a record $163 billion in 2021. Notable companies that went public […]
Short Form Merger: Streamlining the Process for Businesses
Merging two companies is a complex legal and business transaction. A short form merger, in which an acquiring company merges with a subsidiary corporation, offers a more streamlined process that involves important corporate governance considerations. A short form merger, in which an acquiring company merges with a subsidiary corporation, offers a more streamlined process. However, […]
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!
