Seattle Trademark Lawyer

Hope everyone had a great Memorial Day weekend. My wife and I spent four days after INTA unwinding (and not blogging) in Washington, D.C.

Speaking of INTA, here are a few final thoughts:

• There’s a lot of information and fun in the INTA Daily News dispatches. You needn’t have attended the annual meeting to make these reads worth checking out, from Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday.
• I was psyched to see IPKat rate my firm’s space (site of “Meet the Bloggers V”) as INTA’s “Coolest Venue.” Here’s what Jeremy Phillips and friends had to say: “[I]t’s almost inconceivable that lawyers work in this lovely location, with its comfortably blazing log fire, the breathtaking views and the amusingly simple death-trap of highly polished pebbles, though rumour has it that those employed at Graham & Dunn are capable of doing so.” Thanks, guys! That’s quite an honor, er, honour.
• Someone at “Meet the Bloggers V” mentioned that I look older in person than I do in my blog photo. Does trademark law really age a person that much? Here’s a current photo showing my older, wiser self.

Back to regular blogging schedule tomorrow!

Photo credit: STL’s better half

Thanks to everyone who came to “Meet the Bloggers V” tonight at Graham & Dunn on Seattle’s beautiful waterfront. I, for one, had a blast! I know I’m missing some folks, but at a minimum we had trademark law bloggers and readers from France, Spain, England, China, Australia, New Zealand, Brazil, Germany, Canada, Finland, Switzerland, South Africa, the Netherlands, and many cities throughout the United States. What a diverse and interesting crowd! Here are some snaps:

Your trademark bloggers (photo by Zack Wright)

 Marty, John, Marco

Tuukka and Gino

See you next year in Boston at “Meet the Bloggers VI”!

What a great idea. I only wish I’d thought of it.

Nicholas Weston (home of the Australian Trade Marks Law Blog) has announced the results of its first-annual “Tattooed Brands” survey of the trademarks most found inked onto Aussies’ flesh. Here are the top 10:

1. Harley-Davidson

2. Nike

3. AFL (Australian Rules) club logos

4. Vegemite

5. VB

6. Disney characters (various)

7. Holden

8. Ford

9. Fox/Alpinestars (motocross)

10. Triple J (radio)

Nicholas Weston’s legal take on this? “Most well known brands and logos are registered trade marks. Use of a registered trade mark as a tattoo is generally not ‘use as a trade mark’ by using the sign in the course of trade for the purposes of s 120 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth).”

Photo credit: Tattooique.com

Trademark law bloggers and trademark law blog readers:

Can’t wait to see you at “Meet the Bloogers V!” As a reminder, it’s on Monday, May 18, from 6-9 p.m. at Graham & Dunn, Pier 70, 2801 Alaskan Way, Suite 300, Seattle — just over one walking mile from the Washington State Convention and Trade Center. Taxis know where we are, and it’ll set you back $5-10. If you want to walk (and it’s a nice walk on a beautiful day), here are the particulars from Google:

Adidas’ 3-stripe “Superstar” shoe (left)
and Topline’s allegedly infringing four-stripe shoe

On May 11, Adidas America, Inc., filed a trademark infringement lawsuit in the Western District against Bellevue-based shoe maker The Topline Corporation. Adidas alleges that Topline’s two- and four-stripe shoe designs infringe Adidas’ three-stripe design as well as the trade dress of Adidas’ “Superstar,” “Mei” and “Pranja” shoes.

Interestingly (to me at least), Adidas describes its “Superstar” shoe trade dress as including “a unique and non-functional combination of three stripes on the side of the shoe parallel to the equidistant small holes, a rubber ‘shell toe,’ a particularly flat sole and a colored portion on the outer back heel section.”

Topline has not yet answered Adidas’ complaint.

Adidas brought a similar trademark lawsuit against Payless Shoesource, Inc., in the District of Oregon, which last year resulted in a $305 million jury verdict in Adidas’ favor (later reduced to $65 million).

Topline is no stranger to the Western District. In 2007, it brought two trademark suits against competing shoe makers 4273371 Canada, Inc., Flurt Footwear, and a dozen others. (See STL posts on Topline’s cases from April 12, 2007, July 5, 2007, August 14, 2007, and Oct. 28, 2007.)

Given the parties’ litigious natures, this case will be case one to watch.

The case cite is Adidas America, Inc. v. The Topline Corporation, No. 09-646 (W.D. Wash.).