Steve Madden won’t stand for it: challenge to Adidas for dominance over stripes

Steve Madden won't stand for it: challenge to Adidas for dominance over stripes

Steve Madden won’t stand for it and filed a lawsuit against Adidas, challenging the German giant’s attempt to block the sale of some of its sneakers featuring two non-parallel stripes. After suffering legal action for years, now the brand is on to the offensive. The dispute concerns the design of two models in particular, with Steve Madden accusing Adidas of trying to exercise a monopoly on footwear with striped patterns, despite the fact that the use is now widespread in fashion. The complaint was filed in federal court in Brooklyn, New York: a new chapter of a long saga.

Steve Madden won’t stand for it

The U.S. company reported that Adidas has made similar allegations before, including two proceedings in 2002 regarding models with two and four parallel stripes, which were later resolved through a confidential settlement. But this time the brand has gone further. As Reuters reports, in the complaint filed, Steve Madden stressed that he has grown tired of Adidas’ complaints about footwear whose design had nothing to do with the sports brand’s three-stripe design. The new legal battle, however, concerns two specific Steve Madden models: Viento, with two stripes, and Janos, whose stripes recall the shape of the letter K. The brand is aiming to obtain a ruling confirming the legality of both models, allowing sales to continue without further hindrance.

A new chapter

In other words, according to Madden, Adidas doesn’t own all stripes and should not be allowed to claim that it has a monopoly on all shoes with stripes, bars, ribbons or any other shape with four sides, parallel, straight or otherwise. In fact, in this case, Adidas would have asked to stop sales of Viento, so as not to confuse consumers, as well as report the Janos model to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. A new feud is on the way, as the apparel and footwear giant known globally for its three parallel stripes had previously resorted to legal avenues to protect its brands, seeking to prevent the marketing of products it deemed too similar.

Read also:

PREMIUM CONTENT

Choose one of our subscription plans

Do you want to receive our newsletter?
Subscribe now
×