Dude, Don’t Be Messin’ With The Shoes And It Ain’t Just China.

When growing up, I played basketball 2-7 hours a day, year round. That meant a lot of basketball shoes. The shoes were everything. The shoes told people how you thought of yourself and they influenced how others thought of you.
Like everyone else of my era, I started out with Converse All Stars because I had no choice. They were crap but until better came out, we just didn’t know.
The first “modern” basketball shoe was the Adidas Superstar. I think they cost thirty dollars, which my parents thought was absolutely insane, compared to the $9.95 I was paying for my Cons down at Okun Brothers. But I had to have those shoes. Is there anyone out there who does not associate Kareem with these shoes?
At some point thereafter came my John “Hondo” Havlicek phase, which meant having to special order really ugly green suede (were they suede or were they leather?) Adidas. This told everyone that I may be White, but I can play. While wearing those shoes, great plays on my part would sometimes evoke other players to call me “Hondo.” Yes!
There was also for some short period my Walt “Clyde” Frazier era, which meant moderately ugly (and too wide for my feet — okay mom, I’m finally admitting it now) Puma Clydes. Great plays on my part led to other players remarking that I was “Clyding.” This told everyone that my ambitions extended beyond Kalamazoo. I was urban and urbane now.
There was my very short Pro-Keds period. Purple suede, I believe. Are you messin’ with me, or are you messin’ with Tiny Archibald? Totally cool shoes, totally cool image, but, when you got right down to it, they were lousy shoes. Oh well.
And there was also my Iceman phase, which meant Nikes. Did I just nail that 25 footer with someone three inches taller than me draped all over me? No big deal.
So the thought of anyone messing with any of these classics would draw my ire.
And apparently, I am not the only one. According to the Seattle Trademark Blog, an Oregon Federal Court jury just found Payless Shoesource, Inc., liable for infringing Adidas America, Inc.’s three-stripe trademark and awarded Adidas $305 million. “The jury found Payless infringed or diluted Adidas’ mark or trade dress by using a two- and four-stripe logo on its competing athletic shoes. Trial lasted 14 days. The jury deliberated for two days.” Here are the shoes the jury found were infringing:
<img alt="Payless.png" src="http://www.chinalawblog.com/Payless.png" width="436" height="501" /
Man, if Lot 3601 doesn't look just like my old Kareems, only with some mutant fourth stripe. Tort lawyers out there, can I bring a claim for post-adolesent traumatic shoe disorder? Are we talking class action? Should I be wary of allowing my childhood friend, Jeff Lane, to join in for fear that Payless will be able to prove that because he was never any good at hoops, there are no reputational damages? Same with John DiDominic.
In your face Payless, thinking you might be able to confuse people into thinking I once wore your shoes when I was always way too cool for that. Payless. Damn. That would have been an abomination. No Payless here.
So what’s the China angle? Well it is a bit tenuous, but this ought to remind you that trademark infringement can occur anywhere, not just in China, but if you want to know how to protect your trademark in China, read this article. And it ought to tell you that the shoes are everything.
Weird observation: Big difference between male and female basketball players when it comes to “the shoes.” Boys see it as a compliment when some other player buys the same shoes. Female etiquette dictates securing permission before buying the same shoes, and, oftentimes, if possible, the request is tempered by a promise to get them in a different color.
Update: The tres chic Counterfeit Chic blog just did an interesting post on this same case, entitled, “Adidas v. Payless: 3 Stripes, You’re Out.”