1- COMPLAINT

21184-0105/LEGAL125586315.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Phone: 503.727.2000

Fax: 503.727.2222

Stephen M. Feldman, OSB No. 932674

SFeldman@perkinscoie.com

Kristina J. Holm, OSB No. 112607

KJHolm@perkinscoie.com

PERKINS COIE LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Telephone: 503.727.2000

R. Charles Henn, Jr. (pro hac vice pending)

chenn@kilpatricktownsend.com

Charles H. Hooker III (pro hac vice pending)

chooker@kilpatricktownsend.com

KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP

1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800

Atlanta, GA 30309

Telephone: 404.815.6500

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

PORTLAND DIVISION

ADIDAS AMERICA, INC., a Delaware 

corporation; and ADIDAS AG, a foreign 

entity, 

Plaintiffs,

v.

KMART CORPORATION, a Michigan 

corporation,

Defendant.

No. 03:15-cv-586 

COMPLAINT

(Trademark Infringement, Unfair 

Competition, Trademark Dilution, and 

Deceptive Trade Practices)

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
2- COMPLAINT

21184-0105/LEGAL125586315.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Phone: 503.727.2000

Fax: 503.727.2222

Plaintiffs adidas America, Inc. and adidas AG (collectively, “adidas”) state the following 

for their Complaint against Defendant Kmart Corporation (“Kmart” or “Defendant”).

I. INTRODUCTION

1. For decades, adidas has manufactured, sold, and promoted apparel and footwear 

bearing its famous and distinctive Three-Stripe trademark (the “Three-Stripe Mark”). adidas 

owns numerous incontestable federal trademark registrations for its Three-Stripe Mark for 

apparel and footwear, and adidas has invested millions of dollars building its brand in connection 

with the Three-Stripe Mark.

2. Despite Kmart’s knowledge of adidas’s rights in the famous Three-Stripe Mark, 

Kmart is designing, sourcing, manufacturing, distributing, marketing, promoting, offering for 

sale, and/or selling apparel bearing confusingly similar imitations of adidas’s Three-Stripe Mark. 

Kmart’s apparel is not manufactured by adidas, nor is Kmart connected or affiliated with, or 

authorized by, adidas in any way. Kmart’s merchandise is likely to cause confusion, deceive the 

public regarding its source, and dilute and tarnish the distinctive quality of adidas’s Three-Stripe 

Mark. 

3. This is an action at law and in equity for trademark infringement and dilution, 

unfair competition, and deceptive trade practices, arising under the Trademark Act of 1946, 

15 U.S.C. §§ 1051, et. seq. (2009); the anti-dilution laws of several states; the fair business 

practices and unfair and deceptive trade practices acts of several states; and the common law. 

Among other relief, adidas asks this Court to: (a) permanently enjoin Kmart from marketing or 

selling apparel bearing confusingly similar two-, three- and four-stripe imitations of the ThreeStripe Mark; (b) award adidas statutory and/or monetary damages and to treble any monetary 

damages award; (c) require Kmart to disgorge all profits from sales of the infringing apparel; and 

(d) award adidas punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs.
3- COMPLAINT

21184-0105/LEGAL125586315.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Phone: 503.727.2000

Fax: 503.727.2222

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

4. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under section 39 of the Lanham Act, 

15 U.S.C. § 1121, and under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338. Subject matter jurisdiction over 

adidas’s related state and common law claims is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1338 and 1367. 

5. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Kmart because, on information and 

belief, (a) Kmart has marketed, distributed, offered for sale, and/or sold to persons within the 

State of Oregon, (b) Kmart regularly transacts and conducts business within the State of Oregon; 

and/or (c) Kmart otherwise has made or established contacts within the State of Oregon 

sufficient to permit the exercise of personal jurisdiction. 

6. The District of Oregon is a proper venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) 

because a substantial part of the acts or omissions giving rise to adidas’s claims occurred in this 

District.

III. PARTIES

7. Plaintiff adidas AG is a joint stock company organized and existing under the 

laws of the Federal Republic of Germany, having its office and principal place of business at 

Postach 11230, D-91072 Herzogenaurach, Federal Republic of Germany.

8. Plaintiff adidas America, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the 

laws of the State of Delaware, having its principal place of business at 5055 N. Greeley Avenue, 

Portland, Oregon 97217. adidas America, Inc. directs all U.S.-based operations on behalf of 

adidas AG, including sales, brand marketing, product marketing, product design, public 

relations, distribution, enforcement, and licensing of and for ADIDAS-branded merchandise, 

including goods bearing the distinctive Three-Stripe Mark. adidas AG and adidas America, Inc., 

as well as any predecessors or related entities, are collectively referred to as “adidas.”

9. On information and belief, Defendant Kmart Corporation is a Michigan 

corporation, having a principal place of business at 3333 Beverly Road, Hoffman Estates, Illinois 

60179.
4- COMPLAINT

21184-0105/LEGAL125586315.1 

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Phone: 503.727.2000

Fax: 503.727.2222

IV. FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

A. adidas’s Famous Three-Stripe Mark

10. adidas is currently, and for years has been, one of the world’s leading 

manufacturers of athletic footwear, sportswear, and sporting equipment. Over sixty (60) years 

ago, adidas first placed three parallel stripes on its athletic shoes, and the Three-Stripe Mark 

came to signify the quality and reputation of adidas footwear to the sporting world early in the 

company’s history. 

11. At least as early as 1952, adidas began using its Three-Stripe Mark on footwear 

sold in the United States and worldwide. The Three-Stripe Mark quickly came to signify the 

quality and reputation of adidas footwear. Pages from adidas catalogs featuring examples of 

footwear bearing the Three-Stripe Mark are attached as Exhibit 1. 

12. At least as early as 1967, adidas began using the Three-Stripe Mark on apparel 

sold in the United States and worldwide. Pages from adidas catalogs featuring examples of 

apparel bearing the Three-Stripe Mark are attached as Exhibit 2. 

13. adidas is the owner of a federal trademark registration, Reg. No. 2,058,619, issued 

by the PTO on May 6, 1997, for the Three-Stripe Mark, as depicted on the following page, for 

“sports and leisure wear, namely shirts.” 

Affidavits have been filed pursuant to Sections 8 and 15 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1058 

and 1065, and this registration is incontestable. A copy of the Certificate of Registration for this 

mark is attached as Exhibit 3. 
5- COMPLAINT

21184-0105/LEGAL125586315.1 

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Phone: 503.727.2000

Fax: 503.727.2222

14. adidas is the owner of a federal trademark registration, Reg. No. 3,029,127, issued 

by the PTO on December 13, 2005, for the Three-Stripe Mark, as depicted below, for “clothing, 

namely, T-shirts, sweatshirts, jackets and coats.”

Affidavits have been filed pursuant to Sections 8 and 15 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1058 

and 1065, and this registration is incontestable. A copy of the Certificate of Registration for this 

mark is attached as Exhibit 4. 

15. adidas is the owner of a federal trademark registration, Reg. No. 3,087,329, issued 

by the PTO on May 2, 2006, for the Three-Stripe Mark, as depicted below, for “clothing, 

namely, shirts, T-shirts, sweatshirts, vests, jackets and coats.” 

Affidavits have been filed pursuant to Sections 8 and 15 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1058 

and 1065, and this registration is incontestable. A copy of the Certificate of Registration for this 

mark is attached as Exhibit 5. 

16. adidas is the owner of a federal trademark registration, Reg. No. 2,278,591, issued 

by the PTO on September 21, 1999, for the Three-Stripe Mark, as depicted below, for “sports 

and leisure wear, namely shorts.” 
6- COMPLAINT

21184-0105/LEGAL125586315.1 

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Phone: 503.727.2000

Fax: 503.727.2222

Affidavits have been filed pursuant to Sections 8 and 15 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1058 

and 1065, and this registration is incontestable. A copy of the Certificate of Registration for this 

mark is attached as Exhibit 6. 

17. adidas also owns numerous additional trademark registrations for the Three-Stripe 

Mark covering apparel (Reg. Nos. 870,136, 2,016,963, 2,284,308, 3,063,742, 3,063,745, 

3,183,656, and 3,236,505). A copy of the Certificate of Registration for each of these marks is 

attached collectively as Exhibit 7. 

18. Additionally, adidas owns federal registrations for verbal trademarks using the 

term “3 stripes” including THE BRAND WITH THE 3 STRIPES, Reg. No. 1,674,229, for “sport 

and leisure wear.” Affidavits have been filed pursuant to Sections 8 and 15 of the Lanham Act, 

15 U.S.C. §§ 1058 and 1065, and this registration is incontestable. A copy of the Certificate of 

Registration for this mark is attached as Exhibit 8. 

19. adidas’s Three-Stripe Mark is well-known and famous and has been for many 

years. adidas has used the Three-Stripe Mark in connection with its frequent sponsorship of 

musical artists, including pop-stars Katy Perry and Selena Gomez and iconic rappers B.o.B, 

Snoop Dogg, Pharrell Williams, and Kanye West. 

20. adidas also has used the Three-Stripe Mark in connection with its frequent 

sponsorship of athletic tournaments and organizations, as well as professional athletes and 

collegiate sports teams. For example, adidas has had longstanding relationships with the 

University of California at Los Angeles, the University of Nebraska, the University of Louisville, 

the University of Michigan, and the University of Miami. Among many others, adidas sponsors: 
7- COMPLAINT

21184-0105/LEGAL125586315.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Phone: 503.727.2000

Fax: 503.727.2222

(a) 2012 NFL Offensive Rookie of the Year Robert Griffin III; (b) NBA stars Tim Duncan, 

Dwight Howard, Damian Lillard, and Derrick Rose; (c) professional golfer Sergio Garcia; and 

(d) internationally famous soccer players David Beckham and Lionel Messi. For decades, adidas 

also has sponsored the world-famous Boston Marathon, along with many other events, teams, 

and individuals.

21. The Three-Stripe Mark is nonfunctional, and the public recognizes and 

understands that the Three-Stripe Mark distinguishes and identifies adidas’s merchandise. 

Indeed, unsolicited media coverage has referred to “the iconic adidas three stripes” (Brettman, 

Allan, “World Cup Brings New Shoes, Uniforms from Adidas, Nike,” The Oregonian, 

February 17, 2014), adidas’s “trademark three-stripe sneakers” (Brettman, Allan, “Adidas lifts 

2012 forecast as sales in China soar in Q1,” The Oregonian, May 1, 2012), “the adidas stripes” 

(Brettman, Allan, “A $35 Swoosh of Genius,” The Oregonian, June 16, 2011), adidas’s 

“ubiquitous three stripes” (Brettman, Allan, “Going ‘All In’ Against Nike,” The Oregonian, 

March 15, 2011), the “trademark three-stripe logo” (Pennington, Bill, “Belts That Do More Than 

Hold Up Pants,” New York Times, July 27, 2009), the “iconic three stripes” (“Game Time,” 

Footwear News, June 16, 2008), the “signature three stripes” (Moore, Booth, “Ringing 

Endorsements; Form Follows Function with Much Olympic Wear, but Fashion and Funding are 

also at Play,” L.A. Times, August 13, 2004), the “famous brand with the three stripes” (Whiting, 

Sam, “Must Have,” San Francisco Chronicle, July 7, 2002), and the “legendary Adidas three 

stripes” (“Coty Inc.,” Brand Strategy, September 27, 1999). 

22. For decades, adidas extensively and continuously has used and promoted the 

Three-Stripe Mark in connection with footwear and apparel. In recent years, annual sales of 

products bearing the Three-Stripe Mark have totaled in the billions of dollars globally and in the 

hundreds of millions of dollars within the United States. The Three-Stripe Mark has achieved 

international fame and tremendous public recognition.
8- COMPLAINT

21184-0105/LEGAL125586315.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Phone: 503.727.2000

Fax: 503.727.2222

23. Since introducing its Three-Stripe Mark, adidas has spent millions of dollars 

promoting the mark and products bearing the mark. For example, in March 2011, adidas 

launched an advertising campaign in the United States “featuring Chicago Bulls guard Derrick 

Rose, rapper B.o.B and pop singer Katy Perry, among others,” that “highlights [adidas’s] imprint 

on the worlds of sports, music and fashion,” and “show[s] the breadth and depth of the Adidas 

brand.” A March 15, 2011 article from The Oregonian describing the advertising campaign is 

attached as Exhibit 9. As a result of adidas’s continuous and exclusive use of the Three-Stripe 

Mark in connection with its products, the mark enjoys wide public acceptance and association 

with adidas, and has come to be recognized widely and favorably by the public as an indicator of 

the origin of adidas’s goods.

24. As a result of adidas’s extensive use and promotion of the Three-Stripe Mark, 

adidas has built up and now owns extremely valuable goodwill that is symbolized by the mark. 

The purchasing public has come to associate the Three-Stripe Mark with adidas.

B. Kmart’s Unlawful Activities

25. In blatant disregard of adidas’s rights, Kmart has been designing, sourcing, 

manufacturing, distributing, marketing, promoting, offering for sale, and/or selling in interstate 

commerce apparel that bears confusingly similar imitations of adidas’s Three-Stripe Mark. 

Specifically, Kmart has designed, sourced, manufactured, distributed, marketed, promoted, 

offered for sale, and/or sold the following apparel (the “Infringing Apparel”):
9- COMPLAINT

21184-0105/LEGAL125586315.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Phone: 503.727.2000

Fax: 503.727.2222

Adam Levine Americana Track Jacket 

(Model #71802AI)

Adam Levine Colorblocked Track Jacket 

(Model #71831AI)

Adam Levine Retro Track Jacket (Model #71762AI) Adam Levine Lace Track Jacket (Model #5H436AI)

26. The Infringing Apparel bears two, three, and/or four parallel stripes down the 

outer seam of the sleeves or around the cuffs and collar of the jacket in a manner likely to be 

confused with adidas’s famous Three-Stripe Mark.

27. Kmart had knowledge of adidas’s Three-Stripe Mark when it began designing, 

manufacturing, sourcing, distributing, marketing, promoting, offering for sale, and/or selling the 

Infringing Apparel. On information and belief, Kmart intentionally adopted and used 

confusingly similar imitations of the Three-Stripe Mark knowing that they would mislead and 

deceive consumers into believing that the apparel was produced, authorized, or licensed by 

adidas, or that the apparel originated from adidas.
10- COMPLAINT

21184-0105/LEGAL125586315.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Phone: 503.727.2000

Fax: 503.727.2222

28. The Infringing Apparel designed, manufactured, sourced, distributed, marketed, 

promoted, offered for sale, and/or sold by Kmart is not manufactured by adidas. Nor is Kmart 

associated or connected with adidas, or licensed, authorized, sponsored, endorsed, or approved 

by adidas in any way.

29. adidas used the Three-Stripe Mark extensively and continuously before Kmart 

began designing, manufacturing, sourcing, distributing, marketing, promoting, offering for sale, 

and/or selling confusingly similar imitations of adidas’s apparel.

30. The Infringing Apparel is similar to, and competes with, apparel sold by adidas, 

and the parties’ respective apparel is sold through overlapping channels of trade.

31. Kmart’s use of confusingly similar imitations of adidas’s Three-Stripe Mark is 

likely to deceive, confuse, and mislead purchasers and prospective purchasers into believing that 

the apparel sold by Kmart is manufactured by, authorized by, or in some manner associated with 

adidas, which it is not. The likelihood of confusion, mistake, and deception engendered by 

Kmart’s infringement and dilution of adidas’s mark is causing irreparable harm to the goodwill 

symbolized by the Three-Stripe Mark and the reputation for quality that it embodies.

32. Kmart’s activities are likely to cause confusion before, during, and after the time 

of purchase because purchasers, prospective purchasers, and others viewing Kmart’s Infringing 

Apparel at the point of sale or on a wearer are likely—due to Kmart’s use of confusingly similar 

imitations of the Three-Stripe Mark—to mistakenly attribute the apparel to adidas. This is 

particularly damaging with respect to those people who perceive a defect or lack of quality in 

Kmart’s products. By causing a likelihood of confusion, mistake, and deception, Kmart is 

inflicting irreparable harm on the goodwill symbolized by the Three-Stripe Mark and the 

reputation for quality that it embodies.

33. On information and belief, Kmart continues to use confusingly similar imitations 

of the Three-Stripe Mark in connection with the sale of apparel that competes with the apparel 

manufactured and sold by adidas. Kmart began selling the Infringing Apparel well after adidas 
11- COMPLAINT

21184-0105/LEGAL125586315.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Phone: 503.727.2000

Fax: 503.727.2222

had established protectable rights in its Three-Stripe Mark and well after the Three-Stripe Mark 

had become famous.

34. On further information and belief, Kmart knowingly, willfully, intentionally, and 

maliciously adopted and used confusingly similar imitations of adidas’s Three-Stripe Mark.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Federal Trademark Infringement)

35. adidas repeats and incorporates by reference the allegations in the preceding 

paragraphs.

36. Defendant’s use of confusingly similar imitations of adidas’s Three-Stripe Mark 

is likely to cause confusion, deception, and mistake by creating the false and misleading 

impression that Defendant’s goods are manufactured, produced, distributed, endorsed, 

sponsored, approved, or licensed by adidas, or are associated or connected with adidas.

37. Defendant has used marks confusingly similar to adidas’s federally registered 

Three-Stripe Mark in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1114. Defendant’s activities have caused and, 

unless enjoined by this Court, will continue to cause a likelihood of confusion and deception of 

members of the trade and public, as well as injury to adidas’s goodwill and reputation as 

symbolized by the registered Three-Stripe Mark, for which adidas has no adequate remedy at 

law.

38. Defendant’s actions demonstrate an intentional, willful, and malicious intent to 

trade on the goodwill associated with adidas’s federally registered Three-Stripe Mark to adidas’s 

great and irreparable injury.

39. Defendant has caused and is likely to continue causing substantial injury to the 

public and to adidas, and adidas is entitled to injunctive relief and to recover Defendant’s profits, 

actual damages, enhanced profits and damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees under 

15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1116, and 1117.
12- COMPLAINT

21184-0105/LEGAL125586315.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Phone: 503.727.2000

Fax: 503.727.2222

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Federal Unfair Competition)

40. adidas repeats and incorporates by reference the allegations in the preceding 

paragraphs.

41. Defendant’s use of confusingly similar imitations of adidas’s Three-Stripe Mark 

has caused and is likely to cause confusion, deception, and mistake by creating the false and 

misleading impression that the Infringing Apparel is manufactured or distributed by adidas, is 

affiliated, connected, or associated with adidas, or has the sponsorship, endorsement, or approval 

of adidas.

42. Defendant has made false representations, false descriptions, and false 

designations of its goods in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). Defendant’s activities have caused 

and, unless enjoined by this Court, will continue to cause a likelihood of confusion and deception 

of members of the trade and public, and, additionally, injury to adidas’s goodwill and reputation 

as symbolized by the Three-Stripe Mark, for which adidas has no adequate remedy at law.

43. Defendant’s actions demonstrate an intentional, willful, and malicious intent to 

trade on the goodwill associated with adidas’s Three-Stripe Mark to the great and irreparable 

injury of adidas.

44. Defendant’s conduct has caused, and is likely to continue causing, substantial 

injury to the public and to adidas. adidas is entitled to injunctive relief and to recover 

Defendant’s profits, actual damages, enhanced profits and damages, costs, and reasonable 

attorneys’ fees under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1125(a), 1116, and 1117.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices)

45. adidas repeats and incorporates by reference the allegations in the preceding 

paragraphs.
13- COMPLAINT

21184-0105/LEGAL125586315.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Phone: 503.727.2000

Fax: 503.727.2222

46. Defendant has been and is passing off its goods as those of adidas, causing a 

likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding as to the source, sponsorship, or approval of 

Defendant’s apparel; causing a likelihood of confusion as to Defendant’s affiliation, connection, 

or association with adidas; and otherwise damaging adidas and the consuming public. 

Defendant’s conduct constitutes unfair and deceptive acts or practices in the course of a business, 

trade, or commerce in violation of the unfair and deceptive trade practices statutes of several 

states, including Oregon’s Unlawful Trade Practices Act, O.R.S. §§ 646.605 to 646.656 (1997), 

as well as California CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE § 17200, et seq. (West 2009); Colorado, 

COLO. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 6-1-101 to 6-1-115 (West 2009); Delaware, DEL. CODE ANN. 

tit. 6, §§ 2531 to 2536 (2009); Georgia, GA. CODE ANN. §§ 10-1-370 to 10-1-375 (2009); 

Hawaii, HAW. REV. STAT. §§ 481A-1 to 481A-5 (2009); Illinois, ILL. COMP. STAT. ANN. 

ch. 815, 510/1 to 510/7 (2009); Maine, ME. REV. STAT. ANN. tit. 10, §§ 1211 to 1216 (West 

2009); Minnesota, MINN. STAT. ANN. § 325D.43 to .48 (West 2009); Nebraska, NEB. REV. 

STAT. §§ 87-301 to 87-306 (2009); New Mexico, N.M. STAT. ANN. §§ 57-12-1 to 57-12-22 

(Michie 2009); New York, N.Y. GEN. BUS. Law § 349 (McKinney 2009); Ohio, OHIO REV. 

CODE ANN. §§ 4165.01 to 4165.04 (Baldwin 2009); and Oklahoma, OKLA. STAT. ANN. tit. 

78, §§ 51 to 55 (West 2009).

47. Defendant’s unauthorized use of confusingly similar imitations of adidas’s ThreeStripe Mark has caused and is likely to cause substantial injury to the public and to adidas. 

adidas is entitled to injunctive relief and to recover damages and, if appropriate, punitive 

damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees.

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Common Law Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition)

48. adidas repeats and incorporates by reference the allegations in the preceding 

paragraphs.
14- COMPLAINT

21184-0105/LEGAL125586315.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Phone: 503.727.2000

Fax: 503.727.2222

49. Defendant’s acts constitute common law trademark infringement and unfair 

competition, and have created and will continue to create, unless restrained by this Court, a 

likelihood of confusion to the irreparable injury of adidas. adidas has no adequate remedy at law 

for this injury.

50. On information and belief, Defendant acted with full knowledge of adidas’s use 

of, and statutory and common law rights to, the Three-Stripe Mark and without regard to the 

likelihood of confusion of the public created by Defendant’s activities.

51. Defendant’s actions demonstrate an intentional, willful, and malicious intent to 

trade on the goodwill associated with adidas’s Three-Stripe Mark to the great and irreparable 

injury of adidas.

52. As a result of Defendant’s acts, adidas has been damaged in an amount not yet 

determined or ascertainable. At a minimum, however, adidas is entitled to injunctive relief, to an 

accounting of Defendant’s profits, damages, and costs. Further, in light of the deliberately 

fraudulent and malicious use of confusingly similar imitations of adidas’s Three-Stripe Mark, 

and the need to deter Defendant from engaging in similar conduct in the future, adidas 

additionally is entitled to punitive damages.

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Federal Trademark Dilution)

53. adidas repeats and incorporates by reference the allegations in the preceding 

paragraphs.

54. For decades, adidas has exclusively and continuously promoted and used the 

registered Three-Stripe Mark both in the United States and throughout the world. The mark 

therefore had become a famous and well-known symbol of adidas and its products well before 

Defendant offered for sale the Infringing Apparel. 

55. Defendant is making use in commerce of marks that dilute and are likely to dilute 

the distinctiveness of adidas’s Three-Stripe Mark by eroding the public’s exclusive identification 
15- COMPLAINT

21184-0105/LEGAL125586315.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Phone: 503.727.2000

Fax: 503.727.2222

of the famous Three-Stripe Mark with adidas, tarnishing and degrading the positive associations 

and prestigious connotations of the Three-Stripe Mark, and otherwise lessening the capacity of 

the Three-Stripe Mark to identify and distinguish adidas’s goods.

56. Defendant’s actions demonstrate an intentional, willful, and malicious intent to 

trade on the goodwill associated with adidas’s Three-Stripe Mark or to cause dilution of the 

Three-Stripe Mark to the great and irreparable injury of adidas.

57. Defendant has caused and will continue to cause irreparable injury to adidas’s 

goodwill and business reputation, and dilution of the distinctiveness and value of adidas’s 

famous Three-Stripe Mark in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c). adidas therefore is entitled to 

injunctive relief and to Defendant’s profits, actual damages, enhanced profits and damages, and 

reasonable attorneys’ fees under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1125(c), 1116, and 1117.

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(State Trademark Dilution)

58. adidas repeats and incorporates by reference the allegations in the preceding 

paragraphs.

59. adidas has extensively and continuously promoted and used the registered ThreeStripe Mark both in the United States and throughout the world, and the mark had thereby 

become a distinctive, famous, and well-known symbol of adidas’s goods and services well 

before Defendant designed, sourced, manufactured, distributed, marketed, promoted, offered for 

sale, and/or sold the Infringing Apparel. The Three-Stripe Mark is widely recognized by the 

general consuming public of the State of Oregon as a designation that adidas is the source of the 

goods bearing the Three-Stripe Mark.

60. Defendant’s unauthorized imitations of adidas’s registered Three-Stripe Mark 

dilute and are likely to dilute the distinctiveness of adidas’s mark by eroding the public’s 

exclusive identification of this famous and well-known mark with adidas, and tarnishing and 
16- COMPLAINT

21184-0105/LEGAL125586315.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Phone: 503.727.2000

Fax: 503.727.2222

degrading the positive associations and prestigious connotations of the mark, and otherwise 

lessening the capacity of the mark to identify and distinguish adidas’s goods and services.

61. Defendant is causing and will continue to cause irreparable injury to adidas’s 

goodwill and business reputation, and dilution of the distinctiveness and value of adidas’s 

famous Three-Stripe Mark in violation of the Oregon anti-dilution statute, O.R.S. § 647.107 

(2009), as well as the anti-dilution laws of several other states, including California, CAL. BUS. 

& PROF. CODE § 14247 (West 2009); Alabama, ALA. CODE § 8-12-17 (2009); Alaska, 

ALASKA STAT. § 45.50.180 (Michie 2009); Arizona, ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. § 44-1448.01 

(West 2009); Arkansas, ARK. CODE ANN. § 4-71-213 (2009); Connecticut, CONN. GEN. 

STAT. ANN § 35-11i(c) (West 2009); Delaware, DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 6, § 3313 (2009); 

Florida, FLA. STAT. ANN. § 495.151 (West 2007); Georgia, GA. CODE ANN. § 10-1-451 

(2009); Hawaii, HAW. REV. STAT. ANN. § 482-32 (Michie 2009); Idaho, IDAHO CODE 

§ 48-513 (Michie 2009); Illinois, 765 ILL. COMP. STAT. ANN. 1036/65 (2009); Iowa, IOWA 

CODE ANN. § 548.113 (West 2009); Indiana, IN. CODE 24-2-13.5 (West 2009); Kansas, KAN. 

STAT. ANN. § 81-214 (2009); Louisiana, LA. REV. STAT. ANN. § 51:223.1 (West 2009); 

Maine, ME. REV. STAT. ANN. tit. 10, § 1530 (West 2000); Massachusetts, MASS. GEN. 

LAWS. ANN. ch. 110H, § 13 (West 2009); Minnesota, MINN. STAT. ANN. § 333.285 (West 

2009); Mississippi, MISS. CODE. ANN. § 75-25-25 (2009); Missouri, MO. ANN. STAT. 

§ 417.061(1) (West 2009); Montana, MONT. CODE ANN. § 30-13-334 (2009); Nebraska, NEB. 

REV. STAT. ANN. § 87-140 (Michie 2009); Nevada, NEV. REV. STAT. 600.435 (2007); New 

Hampshire, N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. § 350-A:12 (2009); New Jersey, N.J. STAT. ANN. 56:3-

13.20 (West 2009); New Mexico, N.M. STAT. ANN. § 57-3B-15 (Michie 2009); New York, 

N.Y. GEN. BUS. Law § 360-l (2009); Pennsylvania, 54 PA. CONS. STAT. ANN. § 1124 (West 

2009); Rhode Island, R.I. GEN. LAWS § 6-2-12 (2009); South Carolina, S. C. CODE ANN. 

§ 39-15-1165 (2009); Tennessee, TENN. CODE ANN. § 47-25-513 (2009); Texas, TEX. BUS. 

& COM. CODE ANN. § 16.29 (Vernon 2009); Utah, UT. CODE ANN. § 70-3a-403 (2009); 
17- COMPLAINT

21184-0105/LEGAL125586315.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Phone: 503.727.2000

Fax: 503.727.2222

Washington, WASH. REV. CODE ANN. § 19.77.160 (West 2009); West Virginia, W.V. STAT. 

ANN. 47-2-13 (Michie 2009); and Wyoming, WYO. STAT. ANN. § 40-1-115 (Michie 2009). 

adidas therefore is entitled to injunctive relief, damages, and costs, as well as, if appropriate, 

enhanced damages and reasonable attorneys’ fees.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, adidas prays that:

1. Defendant and all of its agents, officers, employees, representatives, successors, 

assigns, attorneys, and all other persons acting for, with, by, through, or under authority from 

Defendant, or in concert or participation with Defendant, and each of them, be enjoined 

permanently, from:

a. manufacturing, sourcing, distributing, marketing, promoting, offering for sale, 

or selling the Infringing Apparel;

b. using any trademark, logo, design, or source designation of any kind on or in 

connection with Defendant’s goods that is confusingly similar to adidas’s 

Three-Stripe Mark;

c. using any trademark, logo, design, or source designation of any kind on or in 

connection with Defendant’s goods that is likely to cause confusion, mistake, 

deception, or public misunderstanding that such goods are produced or 

provided by adidas, are sponsored or authorized by adidas, or are in any way 

connected or related to adidas;

d. using any trademark, logo, design, or source designation of any kind on or in 

connection with Defendant’s goods that dilutes or is likely to dilute the 

distinctiveness of the trademarks or logos of adidas; and

e. passing off, palming off, or assisting in passing off or palming off Defendant’s 

goods as those of adidas, or otherwise continuing any and all acts of unfair 

competition as alleged in this Complaint;
18- COMPLAINT

21184-0105/LEGAL125586315.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Phone: 503.727.2000

Fax: 503.727.2222

2. Defendant be ordered to deliver up for impoundment and for destruction all 

apparel, boxes, labels, tags, signs, packages, receptacles, advertising, sample books, promotional 

material, stationery, or other materials in the possession, custody, or under the control of 

Defendant that are found to adopt, use, feature, infringe, or dilute any of adidas’s trademarks or 

that otherwise unfairly compete with adidas or adidas’s products;

3. Defendant be compelled to account to adidas for any and all profits derived by 

Defendant from the sale or distribution of the Infringing Apparel;

4. adidas be awarded all damages caused by the acts forming the basis of this 

Complaint; 

5. Based on Defendant’s knowing and intentional use of confusingly similar 

imitations of adidas’s Three-Stripe Mark, the damages award be trebled and the award of 

Defendant’s profits be enhanced as provided for by 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a) and (b);

6. Defendant be required to pay to adidas the costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees 

incurred by adidas in this action pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a) and the state statutes cited in 

this Complaint;

7. Based on Defendant’s willful and deliberate infringement and/or dilution of 

adidas’s Three-Stripe Mark, and to deter such conduct in the future, adidas be awarded punitive 

damages; 

8. Defendant be required to pay prejudgment and post-judgment interest on the 

damages and profits awards; and

9. adidas have such other and further relief as the Court may deem just.
19- COMPLAINT

21184-0105/LEGAL125586315.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Phone: 503.727.2000

Fax: 503.727.2222

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

adidas respectfully demands a trial by jury on all claims and issues so triable.

DATED: April 8, 2015 PERKINS COIE LLP

By: /s/ Stephen M. Feldman

Stephen M. Feldman, OSB No. 932674

SFeldman@perkinscoie.com

Kristina J. Holm, OSB No. 112607

KJHolm@perkinscoie.com

1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Telephone: 503.727.2000

R. Charles Henn, Jr. (pro hac vice pending)

chenn@kilpatricktownsend.com

Charles H. Hooker III (pro hac vice pending)

chooker@kilpatricktownsend.com

KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP

1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800

Atlanta, GA 30309

Telephone: 404.815.6500

Attorneys for Plaintiffs