Interesting to see juror notes become a part of the docket in the recently-decided case of Adidas America, Inc. v. Payless Shoesource, Inc. As many will recall, an Oregon jury last week found Payless’ use of two- and four-stripe designs for athletic shoes infringed Adidas’ three-stripe design for its competing athletic shoes.
In an undated note to District of Oregon Judge Garr M. King, a juror asked: “If this case was found for adidas, would adidas own 2 and 4 stripes?”
The court’s response: “The legal ownership of two and four stripes, generally, is not an issue in this case. The issues for consideration involve only the shoes accused in this case.”
This guidance undoubtedly is correct. But for a litigator it’s always fascinating (and, I’ll admit it, sometimes scary) to see what goes through jurors’ minds. This was important enough a question for a juror to ask — and the response essentially was an instruction that the juror was barking up the wrong tree. I’ve participated in mock trials and seen mock jurors in deliberation latch onto something that neither side argued and that had no basis in the law. Imperfect though our system is, you just hope and ultimately trust that the jury’s collective wisdom will figure out on whose side justice lies.
The case cite is Adidas America, Inc. v. Payless Shoesource, Inc., No. 01-1655 (King, J.).