Seattle Trademark Lawyer

A battle of batting helmets: Rawlings’ helmet (left), which Rawlings
alleges Under Armour used (right) with Under Armour’s logo

On Oct. 27, Western District Judge Marsha Pechman granted Rawlings Sporting Goods Co.’s motion for a preliminary injunction against Under Armour, Inc., based on Rawlings’ trademark infringement claim. (STL post on the complaint here).

The court found that “in 2008 and 2009, Under Armour placed its own logo on the center-front of Rawlings’s helmet during high school exhibition games and advertising materials used in an Eastbay catalogue, a magazine article, point-of-purchase signage and several websites.”

The court added “there is a likelihood of consumer confusion given that Under Armour has now introduced its own baseball helmet for the marketplace.”

Therefore, the court enjoined Under Armour from placing its logo on Rawlings’ helmet in advertising and promotional materials or on the center-front of its own helmets it offers for sale. The court also ordered Under Armour to “send corrective notices to retailers who have submitted orders for the Under Armour helmet as of entry of this Order.” The court ordered that the corrective notices “inform receiptients of this Court’s preliminary injunction.”

Following the order, Under Armour asked the court to clarify or modify its order with respect to the corrective notices.

On Nov. 10, the court granted the request. It specified that Under Armour’s notice must read:

“Under Armour Inc. has likely infringed on the trademark of Rawlings Sporting Goods Company, Inc. In 2008 and 2009, Under Armour placed its logo on Rawlings’s COOLFLO helmet at several promotional events and advertising materials. This likely confused consumers as to the true producer of the COOLFLO helmet. Therefore, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington has barred Under Armour from placing its logo on Rawlings’s COOLFLO helmet in future promotional materials and from selling its own Under Armour helmet with its logo on the helmet’s center-front area. The Court has directed Under Armour to issue this notice to all retailers and consumers who have already cemented orders for Under Armour helmets as they may have been confused by Under Armour’s promotional and advertising materials.”

The case cite is Rawlings Sporting Goods Co., Inc. v. Under Armour, Inc., No. 10-933 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 10, 2010) (Pechman, J.).