Every time we mention to someone these we have a legal battle with Adidas because of our logo, we have the same comments/reaction:
- “what? But the logos are not even similar”
- “How did a big company like Adidas notice you?”
It’s true. The logos are not similar. Also Adidas didn’t really notice Team Marra Jiu-jitsu in Fort Worth, TX. We are too small for it.
The point is that Adidas has repeatedly relied upon its “three stripes” marks to file lawsuits and oppositions against some trademark applicants whose marks and uses pose no reasonable, probable, or likely confusion in the marketplace, in an attempt to institute a giant monopoly over the use of lines.
Want to see some examples?
Would you, in any way, associate any of that brands with Adidas? Of course not. But adidas already opposes all these brands.
Adidas claimed that Tesla was intentionally trying to deceive consumers into believing the Model 3 was an adidas branded car. They also claim that consumers familiar with Adidas’ Three-Stripe-Mark are likely to assume goods offered under Barcelona Fc’s Mark originate from the same source or are affiliated with Adidas.
Adidas takes the same abusive and inequitable position: that the mere inclusion of any design that resembles three lines (two, four, five, or seven lines also) would confuse or mislead the consumers into thinking it’s associated with Adidas. Their claim is usually based on the the presence of lines, regardless of shape, whether parallel, squiggled, equally-sized or not, colorful or not, accompanied by other elements or not, including letters like “E”, “L”, “M”, or the number “3”. Adidas insist that no consumer anywhere can see three lines (or two, four, five, or seven lines) of any shape or color on any product and not immediately be deceived or confused as to an association between that product and Adidas.
Adidas is currently going after Aviator nation arguing that some items Aviator Nation sells feature four or five stripes, but that the brand’s apparel “gives the appearance of having three stripes.”
Recently, in the case Adidas vs. Thom Browne, before the Manhattan Federal Court, the matter was decided in favor of Thom Browne, that made a very important statement ‘Adidas Does Not Own Stripes!’.
The jury correctly concluded that Thom Browne’s use of a striped design did not infringe on Adidas’s trademark, as the distinct marketplaces of the two brands make consumer confusion unlikely.
Leaving the courthouse after the verdict Browne told The Associated Press, “It was important to fight and tell my story (…) I think it’s more important and bigger than me, because I think I was fighting for every designer that creates something and has a bigger company come after them later.”
And he’s right. This is much bigger than Thom Browne or each one of the brands that Adidas is going after. There is a public interest on fighting trademark bullies, because their behavior goes beyond the reasonable protection of a trademark and can be seen as an abuse of legal processes.
A trademark serves to protect the public from fraud and to ensure the source and authenticity of the products. However, when a brand like Adidas misuses the legal system and try to overextend the protection of their trademark, it harm the society by imposing monopolistic practices and restricting consumer choices. This abuse not only undermines the spirit of fair competition but also limits the diversity of options available to consumers.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPO”) defined a trademark bully as “a trademark owner that uses its trademark rights to harass and intimidate another business beyond what the law might be reasonably interpreted to allow”.
Adidas is well known for trademark bullying. A quick Google search reveals numerous cases and articles discussing their aggressive legal tactics and overreaching claims, as shown in the following links “Adidas “Does Not Own Stripes”, “Adidas has sued pretty much everyone who has used stripes“, “Stripe Three, Adidas Called a Trademark Bully“, “Can You Own Stripes?“, “Is adidas Taking Its Three Stripes Trademark Too Far?” “Who owns stripes? A German shoe company owns stripes”, More ‘3 Stripes’ Nonsense: Adidas Opposes LIV Golf’s Trademark App For Logo“, “Adidas Trademark War Means Three Stripes And You’re in Court”, “Adidas vs Tesla; three stripes and you’re out”, “Adidas is trying to stop J. Crew from trademarking a five-stripe design”“, “THREE STRIPES, YOU’RE OUT“, “Adidas Opposes Turner Broadcasting’s ELEAGUE Logo Trademark Because Of Lines”,“Three Stripes, You’re Out”, “Stripe Three, Adidas Called a Trademark Bully”, “Forever 21 Says Adidas 3-Stripe TM Has ‘No Boundaries’”, Adidas A ‘Bully’ Over 3-Stripe Mark, Forever 21 Says, “Is Adidas too Agressive At Enforcing its Trademarks?“, To The Relief of Seargants Everywhere, Forever 21 Challenges Adidas’ Three Stripe Marks,”Adidas Accused of ‘Monopoly’ on Striped Clothing“, “Battle of the Stripes: An Aristotelian Analysis of Adidas’ “Three Stripes” Trademark Infringement Cases
If Adidas employs such aggressive tactics against large companies, imagine what they do to small businesses like ours. While large companies often reach settlements, small businesses rarely have the resources to defend themselves and are often forced to give up entirely. This has been the reality in most of the cases below, and many others, where Adidas has opposed the registration of other brands:
Here are some ways in which Adidas are engaging in trademark bullying :
- Overreaching Claims: Adidas is trying to monopolize a geometric form by itself, in a generic way. They refer to themselves as the “brand of the three stripes” and are trying to own the stripes by itself, non associated to any of their designs.
- Aggressive Legal Actions: Adidas has gained notoriety for taking legal action against small businesses or individuals, and parties that do not pose a genuine threat to its brands.
The Marra Vs Adidas case is a clear example of this. The applicant is a Brazilian jiu-jitsu coach, and uses his brand only at his small business in Fort Worth, Texas, to identify the students he trains (Team Marra Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu). He sells his products as uniform and “spirit wear” only at his location and to his students and families. His brand “M Team Marra Brazilian jiu-jitsu” is unique and is made up of the letter M, contains his last name (Marra), in a shape that refers to the jiu-jitsu black belt, and suggests the quality of his goods and services connected to the Brazilian jiu-jitsu classes provided by himself as the head coach. He definitely do not pose a genuine threat to Adidas. - Excessive Legal Costs: Adidas has forcing smaller entities into lengthy and expensive battles, even when the alleged infringement is minor, knowing the smaller party may not have the resources to defend themselves adequately.
Even in the present case, the applicant is not represented by a trademark attorney because he cannot afford the costs involved. He has carried out his own defense taking a lot of risks because he lacks technical knowledge of the procedure, or even the English language, since first language is Portuguese. He mades his defense on the best of his knowledge, based on information available on the USPTO website and a lot of research, insisting on this case despite all the work and risks involved, simply because he believes the protection of his brand is fair and manifest justice, and he cares a lot about the design and meaning of his logo. - Selective Enforcement of the Mark: Despite Adidas’ aggressive legal actions towards small businesses that do not pose a genuine threat to its brands (but lacks the resource enough to protect themselves), Adidas has been ignoring others with similar alleged infringements, but are well known brands or have more public attention.It got very evident, for example, when Adidas withdraw the opposition 91284161 against the Black Lives Matter movement a couple of days after file it, due to a wave of bad press and negative public reaction towards Adidas.
The mark ( Serial 90304243) and and its use by are as follows:
Team Marra battle
Our case is similar to most of the cases above and many others. It has dragged on since 2020 for one reason: we refuse to give up on our mark. We’re determined to protect it because we deeply care about our brand. It’s our name on it, and it is fully of meaning of what we do and the values we believe.
This is the concept for our logo, and if you were a student at the time, your opinion was probably consulted when we were creating our brand.
Despite all the odds and imbalance of size and resources, we have been battling Adidas since 2021 on our own, without an attorney.
It’s not that we don’t see the need for legal assistance—quite the opposite. We fully understand that not having an attorney leaves us more vulnerable to potentially fatal errors, especially since we have no experience with legal procedures, and English isn’t even our first language (thank goodness for Google Translate).
However, after talking to some lawyers, they were all unanimous in saying that there is no way a small business affords fighting a giant company like Adidas. On the other hand, while the USPTO strongly recommends having a lawyer, they do allow applicants to represent themselves. So, this felt like our only option.
During the discovery phase, Adidas and we explored some potential settlement. However, all proposals required confidentiality of the facts. Additionally, while they offered limited use of our marks, the terms didn’t provide the protection we needed against them or third-party, so here we are.
Are we going to win or lose this battle? Well, everything is possible, right? However, this is a David and Goliath-style battle and we are aware of it.
At this point, we just feel a strong need to share all of it with our community, because bullying—whether it’s trademark-related or not—affects us all. That’s the message we want to share: stand up for yourself.
