1- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR 

TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT

21184-0112/131203760.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, 10th Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Phone: 503.727.2000

Fax: 503.727.2222

Stephen M. Feldman, OSB No. 932674

SFeldman@perkinscoie.com

PERKINS COIE LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, 10th Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Telephone: 503.727.2000

Facsimile: 503.727.2222

R. Charles Henn Jr. (admitted pro hac vice)

chenn@kilpatricktownsend.com

Charles H. Hooker III (admitted pro hac vice)

chooker@kilpatricktownsend.com

Nichole Davis Chollet (admitted pro hac vice)

nchollet@kilpatricktownsend.com

KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP

1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800

Atlanta, GA 30309

Telephone: 404.815.6500

Facsimile: 404.815.6555

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

PORTLAND DIVISION

ADIDAS AMERICA, INC., a Delaware 

corporation; ADIDAS AG, a foreign entity;

ADIDAS INTERNATIONAL 

MARKETING B.V., a foreign entity;

REEBOK INTERNATIONAL LTD., a 

Massachusetts corporation; and REEBOK 

INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, a foreign 

entity,

Plaintiffs,

v.

TRB ACQUISITIONS LLC, a New York 

limited liability company, CUTIE PIE 

BABY, INC., a New York corporation, 

ELITE PERFORMANCE FOOTWEAR, 

LLC, a New York limited liability company, 

GINA GROUP LLC, a New York limited 

No. 3:15-cv-02113-SI

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR 

TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT

(Trademark Infringement, Unfair 

Competition, Trademark Dilution, and 

Deceptive Trade Practices)

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 60 Filed 07/26/16 Page 1 of 38
2- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR 

TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT

21184-0112/131203760.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, 10th Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Phone: 503.727.2000

Fax: 503.727.2222

liability company, ONE STEP UP, LTD., a 

New York limited company, SARAMAX 

APPAREL GROUP, INC., a New York 

corporation, UNITED LEGWEAR 

COMPANY, LLC, a New York limited 

liability company, ACTIVE BASICS LLC, a New York limited liability company, 

USPA ACCESSORIES, LLC DBA 

CONCEPT ONE, a New York limited 

liability company, IMX, LLC, a New York 

limited liability company, KIDZ 

CONCEPTS, LLC, a New York limited 

liability company, Q4 DESIGNS LLC, a 

New York limited liability company, 

RBX.COM, LLC, a New York limited 

liability company, C.D.B. BRANDS LLC, a 

New York limited liability company, and

L.A. KIDZ, INC., a New York corporation,

Defendants.

Pursuant to Federal Rule 15(a)(1)(B), Plaintiffs adidas America, Inc., adidas AG, and 

adidas International Marketing B.V. (collectively, “adidas”) as well as plaintiffs Reebok 

International Ltd. and Reebok International Limited (collectively, “Reebok” and together with 

adidas, “Plaintiffs”) state the following for their First Amended Complaint against Defendants

TRB Acquisitions LLC, Cutie Pie Baby, Inc., Elite Performance Footwear, LLC, Gina Group 

LLC, One Step Up, Ltd., SaraMax Apparel Group, Inc., United Legwear Company, LLC, Active 

Basics LLC, USPA Accessories, LLC dba Concept One, IMX, LLC, Kidz Concepts, LLC, Q4 

Designs LLC, RBX.com, LLC, C.D.B. Brands LLC, and L.A. Kidz, Inc. (collectively, 

“Defendants”).

I. INTRODUCTION

1. For decades, adidas has manufactured, advertised, marketed, promoted, 

distributed, and sold footwear and apparel bearing its famous and distinctive Three-Stripe 

trademark (the “Three-Stripe Mark”). adidas has also manufactured, advertised, marketed, 

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 60 Filed 07/26/16 Page 2 of 38
3- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR 

TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT

21184-0112/131203760.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, 10th Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Phone: 503.727.2000

Fax: 503.727.2222

promoted, distributed, and sold footwear and apparel bearing its famous, triangular logo, 

depicted below, which incorporates the Three-Stripe Mark (the “Badge of Sport Mark”):

2. adidas has made longstanding use of the Three-Stripe Mark and Badge of Sport 

Mark on athletic footwear and apparel, examples of which are shown below:

3. adidas owns numerous incontestable federal trademark registrations for its ThreeStripe Mark and Badge of Sport Mark (collectively, the “adidas Marks”) for footwear and 

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

adidas Marks.

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 60 Filed 07/26/16 Page 3 of 38
4- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR 

TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT

21184-0112/131203760.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, 10th Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Phone: 503.727.2000

Fax: 503.727.2222

4. adidas also owns the Reebok brand. Since 1980, Reebok has manufactured, 

advertised, marketed, promoted, distributed, and sold footwear and apparel in the United States 

under its well-known and famous REEBOK trademark (the “REEBOK Mark”). Reebok owns 

numerous incontestable federal registrations for its REEBOK Mark and has spent millions of 

dollars promoting and building its brand under the mark.

5. Beginning in 2002, and leveraging the strength of the REEBOK Mark, Reebok 

has manufactured, advertised, marketed, promoted, distributed, and sold footwear and apparel 

under its well-known RBK trademark (the “RBK Mark”). Reebok owns federal registrations for 

its RBK Mark and has invested considerable sums of money in building its brand in connection 

with the RBK Mark. The RBK Mark and REEBOK Mark are referred to collectively as the 

“Reebok Marks.”

6. Despite Plaintiffs’ longstanding rights in the adidas Marks and Reebok Marks

(collectively, “Plaintiffs’ Marks”), Defendants recently began offering for sale footwear and/or

apparel bearing confusingly similar imitations of Plaintiffs’ Marks, as shown in the 

representative examples below (the “Infringing Products”):

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 60 Filed 07/26/16 Page 4 of 38
5- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR 

TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT

21184-0112/131203760.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, 10th Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Phone: 503.727.2000

Fax: 503.727.2222

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 60 Filed 07/26/16 Page 5 of 38
6- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR 

TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT

21184-0112/131203760.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, 10th Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Phone: 503.727.2000

Fax: 503.727.2222

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 60 Filed 07/26/16 Page 6 of 38
7- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR 

TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT

21184-0112/131203760.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, 10th Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Phone: 503.727.2000

Fax: 503.727.2222

7. Many of Defendants’ Infringing Products (as defined below) bear the letters 

“RBX” and a three-stripe design that, in combination with the letters “RBX,” forms a triangle 

shape, as depicted below:

8. On information and belief, the Infringing Products are sold alongside Plaintiffs’ 

products in retail channels of trade, such as TJ Maxx, as shown below.

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 60 Filed 07/26/16 Page 7 of 38
8- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR 

TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT

21184-0112/131203760.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, 10th Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Phone: 503.727.2000

Fax: 503.727.2222

9. The footwear and apparel described above use imitations of Plaintiffs’ Marks in a 

manner that is likely to cause consumer confusion and deceive the public regarding the source, 

sponsorship, and/or affiliation of the products. 

10. Defendants’ actions are irreparably harming Plaintiffs’ brands and their extremely 

valuable trademarks. Plaintiffs, therefore, bring this action at law and in equity for trademark 

infringement and dilution, unfair competition, and unfair business practices arising under the 

Trademark Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051 et seq. (2009) (“Lanham Act”); 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, Plaintiffs ask this Court to: 

(a) permanently enjoin Defendants from marketing or selling footwear and apparel using or 

bearing confusingly similar imitations of Plaintiffs’ trademarks; (b) award Plaintiffs monetary 

damages and to treble that award; (c) require Defendants to disgorge all of their profits from their

sales of the Infringing Products; and (d) award Plaintiffs punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and 

costs.

II. PARTIES

11. 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.

12. Plaintiff adidas International Marketing B.V. is organized under the laws of the 

Netherlands, having a principal place of business at Atlas Arena Offices, Africa Building, 

Hoogoorddreef 9-A, 1101 BA Amsterdam Zuidoost, Netherlands.

13. 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 and adidas International Marketing B.V., including sales, brand marketing, product 

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 60 Filed 07/26/16 Page 8 of 38
9- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR 

TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT

21184-0112/131203760.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, 10th Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Phone: 503.727.2000

Fax: 503.727.2222

marketing, product design, public relations, distribution, enforcement, and licensing of and for 

ADIDAS-branded merchandise, including goods bearing the distinctive adidas Marks. 

adidas AG, adidas International Marketing B.V., and adidas America, Inc., as well as any 

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

14. Plaintiff Reebok International Ltd. is a corporation organized and existing under 

the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, having its principal place of business at 1895 

J.W. Foster Boulevard, Canton, Massachusetts 02021. 

15. Plaintiff Reebok International Limited is a corporation organized and existing 

under the laws of England, having its principal place of business at 11/12 Pall Mall, London 

SW1Y 5LU, England. Reebok International Ltd. and Reebok International Limited are wholly 

owned by adidas AG. Reebok International Ltd. and Reebok International Limited, as well as

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

16. On information and belief, defendant TRB Acquisitions LLC (“TRB”) is a New 

York limited liability company, with its principal place of business at 34 West 33rd Street, 9th 

Floor, New York, New York 10001. On information and belief, TRB owns the RBX mark, the 

Infringing Logo and the Infringing Stripe Designs, as defined below, and licenses the use of 

those marks on the Infringing Products. 

17. On information and belief, defendant Cutie Pie Baby, Inc. is a New York 

corporation, with its principal place of business at 34 West 33rd Street, 5th Floor, New York, 

New York 10001. On further information and belief, Cutie Pie Baby, Inc. is a licensee of TRB 

and designs, manufactures, imports, distributes, offers for sale and/or sells the Infringing 

Products.

18. On information and belief, defendant Elite Performance Footwear, LLC is a New 

York limited liability company, with its principal place of business at 10 West 33rd Street, Suite 

804, New York, New York 10001. On further information and belief, Elite Performance 

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 60 Filed 07/26/16 Page 9 of 38
10- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR 

TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT

21184-0112/131203760.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, 10th Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Phone: 503.727.2000

Fax: 503.727.2222

Footwear, LLC is a licensee of TRB and designs, manufactures, imports, distributes, offers for 

sale and/or sells the Infringing Products.

19. On information and belief, defendant Gina Group LLC is a New York limited 

liability company, with its principal place of business at 10 West 33rd Street, 3rd Floor, New 

York, New York 10001. On further information and belief, Gina Group LLC is a licensee of 

TRB and designs, manufactures, imports, distributes, offers for sale and/or sells Infringing 

Products.

20. On information and belief, defendant One Step Up, Ltd., is a New York limited 

company, with its principal place of business at 1412 Broadway, 3rd Floor, New York, New 

York 10018. On further information and belief, One Step Up, Ltd. is a licensee of TRB and 

designs, manufactures, imports, distributes, offers for sale and/or sells the Infringing Products.

21. On information and belief, defendant SaraMax Apparel Group, Inc. is a New 

York corporation, with a principal place of business at 1372 Broadway, 7th Floor, New York, 

New York 10018. On further information and belief, SaraMax Apparel Group, Inc. is a licensee 

of TRB and designs, manufactures, imports, distributes, offers for sale and/or sells the Infringing 

Products.

22. On information and belief, defendant United Legwear Company, LLC, is a New 

York limited liability company, with a principal place of business at 48 West 38th Street, 3rd

Floor, New York, New York 10018. On further information and belief, United Legwear 

Company, LLC is a licensee of TRB and designs, manufactures, imports, distributes, offers for 

sale and/or sells the Infringing Products.

23. On information and belief, defendant Active Basics LLC is a New York limited 

liability company, with a principal place of business at 1412 Broadway, 3rd Floor, New York, 

New York 10018. On further information and belief, Active Basics LLC is a licensee of TRB 

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 60 Filed 07/26/16 Page 10 of 38
11- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR 

TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT

21184-0112/131203760.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, 10th Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Phone: 503.727.2000

Fax: 503.727.2222

and designs, manufactures, imports, distributes, offers for sale and/or sells the Infringing 

Products.

24. On information and belief, defendant USPA Accessories, LLC dba Concept One

is a New York limited liability company, with a principal place of business at 119 West 40th 

Street, 3rd Floor, New York, New York, 10018. On further information and belief, USPA 

Accessories, LLC dba Concept One is a licensee of TRB and designs, manufactures, imports, 

distributes, offers for sale and/or sells the Infringing Products.

25. On information and belief, defendant IMX, LLC is a New York limited liability 

company, with a principal place of business at 501 7th Avenue, 12th Floor, New York, New 

York 10018. On further information and belief, IMX, LLC is a licensee of TRB and designs, 

manufactures, imports, distributes, offers for sale and/or sells the Infringing Products.

26. On information and belief, defendant Kidz Concepts, LLC is a New York limited 

liability company, with a principal place of business at Kidz Concepts, LLC, 1412 Broadway, 

3rd Floor, New York, New York 10018. On further information and belief, Kidz Concepts, LLC 

is a licensee of TRB and designs, manufactures, imports, distributes, offers for sale and/or sells 

the Infringing Products.

27. On information and belief, defendant Q4 Designs LLC is a New York limited 

liability company, with a principal place of business at 20 W 33rd St., New York, New York

10001. On further information and belief, Q4 Designs LLC is a licensee of TRB and designs, 

manufactures, imports, distributes, offers for sale and/or sells the Infringing Products.

28. On information and belief, defendant RBX.com, LLC is a New York limited 

liability company, with a principal place of business at 34 W. 33rd Street, 5th Floor, New York, 

New York 10001. On further information and belief, RBX.com, LLC is a licensee of TRB and 

designs, manufactures, imports, distributes, offers for sale and/or sells the Infringing Products.

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 60 Filed 07/26/16 Page 11 of 38
12- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR 

TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT

21184-0112/131203760.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, 10th Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Phone: 503.727.2000

Fax: 503.727.2222

29. On information and belief, defendant C.D.B. Brands LLC is a New York limited 

liability company, with a principal place of business at 1370 Broadway, Suite 810, New York, 

New York 10010. On further information and belief, C.D.B. Brands LLC is a licensee of TRB 

and designs, manufactures, imports, distributes, offers for sale and/or sells the Infringing 

Products.

30. On information and belief, L.A. Kidz, Inc. is a New York corporation, with a 

principal place of business at 34 34th Street, 4th Floor, Brooklyn, New York 11232. On further 

information and belief, L.A. Kidz, Inc. is a licensee of TRB and designs, manufactures, imports, 

distributes, offers for sale and/or sells the Infringing Products.

III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

31. 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 

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

1367. 

32. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because, on information and 

belief, (a) Defendants have marketed, distributed, offered for sale, and/or sold the Infringing 

Products to persons within the State of Oregon; (b) Defendants regularly transact and conduct 

business within the State of Oregon; and/or (c) Defendants have otherwise made or established 

contacts within the State of Oregon sufficient to permit the exercise of personal jurisdiction.

33. 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 Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in this 

District.

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 60 Filed 07/26/16 Page 12 of 38
13- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR 

TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT

21184-0112/131203760.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, 10th Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Phone: 503.727.2000

Fax: 503.727.2222

IV. FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

A. The Famous Three-Stripe and Badge of Sport Marks

34. 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. 

35. At least as early as 1952, adidas began using the 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 footwear bearing 

the Three-Stripe Mark are attached as Exhibit 1.

36. adidas is the owner of a federal trademark registration, Reg. No. 1,815,956, issued 

by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) on January 11, 1994, for the ThreeStripe Mark, as depicted below, for “athletic footwear.”

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 2.

37. adidas is the owner of a federal trademark registration, Reg. No. 1,833,868, issued 

by the PTO on May 3, 1994, for the Three-Stripe Mark, as depicted below, covering “athletic 

footwear.”

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 60 Filed 07/26/16 Page 13 of 38
14- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR 

TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT

21184-0112/131203760.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, 10th 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 3.

38. adidas is the owner of a federal trademark registration, Reg. No. 2,278,589, issued 

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

“athletic footwear.”

Affidavits have been filed pursuant to Sections 8 and 15 and 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.

39. adidas is the owner of a federal trademark registration, Reg. No. 3,029,129, issued 

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

“footwear.”

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 60 Filed 07/26/16 Page 14 of 38
15- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR 

TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT

21184-0112/131203760.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, 10th 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 5.

40. adidas is the owner of a federal trademark registration, Reg. No. 3,029,135, issued 

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

“footwear.”

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.

41. 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 apparel bearing 

the Three-Stripe Mark are attached as Exhibit 7.

42. 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 below, for “sports and 

leisure wear, namely shirts.”

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 60 Filed 07/26/16 Page 15 of 38
16- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR 

TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT

21184-0112/131203760.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, 10th 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 8.

43. 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 9.

44. 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 10.

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 60 Filed 07/26/16 Page 16 of 38
17- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR 

TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT

21184-0112/131203760.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, 10th Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Phone: 503.727.2000

Fax: 503.727.2222

45. 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.”

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 11.

46. adidas is the owner of a federal trademark registration, Reg. No. 2,284,308, issued 

by the PTO on October 12, 1996, for the Three-Stripe Mark, as depicted below, for “sports and 

leisure wear, namely pants.”

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 12.

47. adidas is the owner of a federal trademark registration, Reg. No. 4,910,643, issued 

by the PTO on March 8, 2016, for the Three-Stripe Mark, as depicted below, for a variety of 

products, including clothing, footwear, sporting goods, and bags.

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 60 Filed 07/26/16 Page 17 of 38
18- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR 

TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT

21184-0112/131203760.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, 10th Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Phone: 503.727.2000

Fax: 503.727.2222

A copy of the Certificate of Registration for this mark is attached as Exhibit 13.

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

Mark covering footwear and apparel, including Reg. Nos. 870,136, 961,353, 2,016,963, 

2,909,861, 2,999,646, 3,063,742, 3,063,745, 3,183,656, 3,183,663 and 3,236,505. Copies of the 

Certificates of Registration for each of these marks are attached collectively as Exhibit 14.

49. 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 15.

50. One well-known mark incorporating the Three-Stripe Mark is adidas’s triangular 

Badge of Sport Mark, which is depicted below:

Representative photographs of footwear and apparel bearing the Badge of Sport Mark are 

attached as Exhibit 16.

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 60 Filed 07/26/16 Page 18 of 38
19- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR 

TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT

21184-0112/131203760.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, 10th Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Phone: 503.727.2000

Fax: 503.727.2222

51. adidas owns numerous federal trademark registrations for the Badge of Sport Mark, 

including Reg. Nos. 2,179,796, 2,411,802, 2,532,007, 2,651,325, 2,627,645, and 3,708,658. 

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

and 1065, and these registrations are incontestable. Copies of the Certificates of Registration for 

each of these marks are attached collectively as Exhibit 17.

52. The adidas Marks are well known and famous and have been for many years. 

adidas has used the adidas Marks 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. 

53. adidas also has used the adidas Marks 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, Arizona State University, and the University of Miami. Among many others, adidas 

sponsors (a) NFL stars Aaron Rodgers, DeMarco Murray, Jimmy Graham, Von Miller, Sammy 

Watkins, and Robert Griffin III; (b) NBA stars James Harden, Andrew Wiggins, Damian Lillard, 

Tim Duncan, and Derrick Rose; (c) baseball players Josh Harrison, Justin Upton, Kris Bryant, 

Carlos Gomez, and Melvin Upton Jr.; (d) professional golfers Sergio Garcia, Dustin Johnson, 

and Jason Day; and (e) 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.

54. The adidas Marks are nonfunctional, and the public recognizes and understands 

that the Three-Stripe Mark, which is incorporated in the Badge of Sport Mark, distinguishes and 

identifies adidas’s merchandise. Unsolicited media coverage has referred to “the iconic adidas 

three stripes” (Brettman, Allan, “World Cup Brings New Shoes, Uniforms from Adidas, Nike,” 

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 60 Filed 07/26/16 Page 19 of 38
20- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR 

TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT

21184-0112/131203760.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, 10th Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Phone: 503.727.2000

Fax: 503.727.2222

The Oregonian, Feb. 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). 

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

adidas Marks in connection with footwear and apparel. In recent years, annual sales of products 

bearing the adidas Marks have totaled in the billions of dollars globally and in the hundreds of 

millions of dollars within the United States. The adidas Marks have achieved international fame 

and tremendous public recognition.

56. Since introducing the adidas Marks, adidas has spent millions of dollars 

promoting the marks and products bearing the marks. 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 this advertising campaign is 

attached as Exhibit 18. Similarly, adidas recently launched its “Sport 15” advertising campaign, 

which represents adidas’s biggest ad spend in the United States. The campaign features soccer 

superstar Lionel Messi, Derrick Rose of the Chicago Bulls, and DeMarco Murray of the 

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 60 Filed 07/26/16 Page 20 of 38
21- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR 

TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT

21184-0112/131203760.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, 10th Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Phone: 503.727.2000

Fax: 503.727.2222

Philadelphia Eagles. A February 13, 2015, article from AdWeek describing adidas’s Sport 15 

advertising campaign is attached as Exhibit 19. As a result of adidas’s continuous and exclusive 

use of the adidas Marks in connection with its products, the marks enjoy wide public acceptance 

and association with adidas, and have come to be recognized widely and favorably by the public 

as indicators of the origin of adidas’s goods.

57. As a result of adidas’s extensive use and promotion of the adidas Marks, adidas 

has built up and now owns extremely valuable goodwill that is symbolized by the marks. The 

purchasing public has come to associate the adidas Marks with adidas.

B. The Famous REEBOK and RBK Marks

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

manufacturers of footwear, sportswear, and sporting equipment. Representative photographs of 

footwear and apparel bearing the REEBOK Mark are attached as Exhibit 20. 

59. In the early 1980s, Reebok rose to prominence through its focus on the fitness and 

aerobics trends that were popular at that time. Reebok’s success in the fitness field propelled it 

to the forefront of the broader sports apparel industry. Today, Reebok continues to focus on 

modern fitness trends to become the number one fitness brand in the world.

60. Reebok first adopted and began using its REEBOK Mark on footwear at least as 

early as 1965. Reebok expanded its use of the REEBOK Mark to include use on apparel at least 

as early as 1985. The REEBOK Mark has come to signify the quality and reputation of Reebok 

footwear, apparel, and sporting equipment. 

61. Reebok is the owner of numerous federal trademark registrations for the 

REEBOK Mark covering footwear and apparel, including Reg. Nos. 1,133,704, 1,390,793, 

1,534,383, and 1,736,143. Affidavits have been filed pursuant to Sections 8 and 15 of the 

Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1058 and 1065, and each of these registrations is incontestable. 

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 60 Filed 07/26/16 Page 21 of 38
22- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR 

TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT

21184-0112/131203760.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, 10th Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Phone: 503.727.2000

Fax: 503.727.2222

Copies of the Certificates of Registration for each of these marks are attached collectively as 

Exhibit 21.

62. The REEBOK Mark has been well known and famous for many years. Reebok 

frequently promotes its REEBOK Mark through partnerships with internationally popular 

superstars, such as Australian model Miranda Kerr and American hip-hop star Kendrick Lamar.

63. Since introducing its REEBOK Mark, Reebok has spent millions of dollars 

promoting the mark and products bearing the mark. As a result of Reebok’s continuous and 

exclusive use of the REEBOK Mark in connection with its products, the mark enjoys broad public 

association with Reebok and has come to be recognized widely and favorably by the public as an 

indicator of the origin of Reebok’s goods. Annually, Reebok has sold hundreds of millions of dollars 

of products bearing the REEBOK Mark. The REEBOK Mark has achieved international fame, 

widespread public recognition, and tremendous goodwill and commercial value. The purchasing 

public has come to associate the REEBOK Mark with Reebok.

64. Shortly after the turn of the 21st Century, Reebok decided to leverage the power 

of the REEBOK Mark in a new and distinctive word mark, RBK (which removed the vowels in 

“REEBOK”). Since at least 2002, Reebok has manufactured, sold, and promoted footwear and 

apparel under its well-known RBK Mark. In addition to the word mark RBK, Reebok also has 

used a stylized version, depicted below, in connection with the manufacture, sale, and promotion 

of footwear and apparel:

Representative photographs of products and product packaging bearing the RBK Mark (in word 

and stylized form) are attached as Exhibit 22.

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 60 Filed 07/26/16 Page 22 of 38
23- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR 

TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT

21184-0112/131203760.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, 10th Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Phone: 503.727.2000

Fax: 503.727.2222

65. Reebok is the owner of a federal trademark registration, Reg. No. 3,074,802, 

issued by the PTO on March 28, 2006, for the RBK Mark, covering “footwear; headwear; 

apparel, namely, shirts.” A copy of the Certificate of Registration for this mark is attached as 

Exhibit 23.

66. Since adopting the RBK Mark in 2002, Reebok has invested millions of dollars to 

advertise and promote its RBK Mark. For example, Reebok has promoted its well-known RBK 

Mark through partnerships with popular music stars.

67. Since 2002, sales of footwear and apparel under the REEBOK and RBK Marks 

have exceeded $5 billion.

68. As a result of Reebok’s longstanding use and extensive marketing, advertising, 

and promotional efforts over the years, the RBK Mark has come to symbolize the extensive 

goodwill that Reebok has built in the brand, and the RBK Mark is well known among 

consumers.

69. Reebok has also used the REEBOK Mark and RBK Mark in connection with its 

frequent sponsorship of sports tournaments and organizations and professional athletes. For 

example, Reebok sponsors numerous professional athletes, including NFL defensive end and 

reigning defensive player of the year J.J. Watt, former Ultimate Fighting Championship (“UFC”)

bantamweight champion Ronda Rousey, UFC interim featherweight champion Connor 

McGregor, four-time CrossFit Games Champion Rich Froning, Jr., as well as CrossFit Games 

Champions Camille Leblanc-Bazinet, Ben Smith, and Katrin Tanja Davidsdottir. Additionally, 

Reebok has been, since 2011, the title sponsor of the annual Reebok CrossFit Games, which 

annually crowns the men and women as “The Fittest on Earth,” and Reebok is also the exclusive 

apparel and footwear provider for CrossFit, one of the fastest growing sports in America. 

Reebok is also the exclusive apparel and footwear sponsor of the UFC, which is the largest 

mixed martial arts promotion company in the world. And Reebok also sponsors the Reebok 

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 60 Filed 07/26/16 Page 23 of 38
24- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR 

TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT

21184-0112/131203760.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, 10th Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Phone: 503.727.2000

Fax: 503.727.2222

Spartan Race, the largest obstacle race series in the world and Les Mills, the world’s largest 

provider of choreographed group fitness classes at health clubs.

C. Defendants’ Unlawful Activities

70. In blatant disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights, Defendants are importing, producing, 

marketing, distributing, offering for sale, and/or selling in interstate commerce footwear and 

apparel bearing confusingly similar imitations of Plaintiffs’ Marks, including the representative 

examples depicted below and in the attached Exhibit 24:

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 60 Filed 07/26/16 Page 24 of 38
25- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR 

TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT

21184-0112/131203760.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, 10th Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Phone: 503.727.2000

Fax: 503.727.2222

71. Many of Defendants’ Infringing Products bear the letters “RBX” and a threestripe design that, in combination with the letters “RBX,” forms a triangle shape, as depicted 

below (the “Infringing Logo”):

72. In addition, many of Defendants’ Infringing Products bear stripe designs that 

closely mimic the placement, shape, and design of the Three-Stripe Mark (the “Infringing Stripe 

Designs”), examples of which are depicted below:

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 60 Filed 07/26/16 Page 25 of 38
26- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR 

TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT

21184-0112/131203760.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, 10th Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Phone: 503.727.2000

Fax: 503.727.2222

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 60 Filed 07/26/16 Page 26 of 38
27- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR 

TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT

21184-0112/131203760.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, 10th Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Phone: 503.727.2000

Fax: 503.727.2222

73. On information and belief, Defendants’ Infringing Products – including those 

bearing the Infringing Logo and Infringing Stripe Designs – are sold next to Plaintiffs’ products 

in retail channels of trade, such as TJ Maxx, as shown below.

74. On information and belief, Defendants had knowledge of and were familiar with 

Plaintiffs’ Marks when they began importing, designing, manufacturing, sourcing, distributing, 

marketing, promoting, offering for sale, and/or selling the Infringing Products. On further 

information and belief, Defendants intentionally adopted and used confusingly similar imitations 

of Plaintiffs’ Marks knowing that they would mislead and deceive consumers into believing that 

the footwear and apparel was produced, authorized, or licensed by Plaintiffs, or that the footwear 

and apparel originated from Plaintiffs.

75. The Infringing Products imported, designed, manufactured, sourced, distributed, 

marketed, promoted, offered for sale, and/or sold by Defendants are not manufactured by 

Plaintiffs. Nor are Defendants associated, affiliated, or connected with Plaintiffs, or licensed, 

authorized, sponsored, endorsed, or approved by Plaintiffs in any way.

76. adidas used the adidas Marks extensively and continuously before Defendants

began: (i) using the Infringing Logo or Infringing Stripe Designs on footwear and apparel or (ii)

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 60 Filed 07/26/16 Page 27 of 38
28- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR 

TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT

21184-0112/131203760.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, 10th Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Phone: 503.727.2000

Fax: 503.727.2222

importing, designing, manufacturing, sourcing, distributing, marketing, promoting, offering for 

sale, and/or selling the Infringing Products.

77. Reebok used the Reebok Marks extensively and continuously before Defendants

began (i) using the Infringing Logo or the RBX mark, or (ii) importing, designing, 

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

Infringing Products.

78. The Infringing Products are similar to, and compete with, footwear and apparel 

sold by Plaintiffs, and the parties’ respective footwear and apparel are sold through overlapping 

channels of trade.

79. Upon information and belief, Defendants’ use of the Infringing Logo and other 

confusingly similar imitations of Plaintiffs’ Marks is creating actual confusion in the 

marketplace, including several online retailers advertising Defendants’ Infringing Products as 

“New Reebok RBX” products. Attached as Exhibit 25 are true and correct examples of such 

actual confusion occurring in the marketplace.

80. Defendants’ use of the Infringing Logo and other confusingly similar imitations 

of Plaintiffs’ Marks is likely to further deceive, confuse, and mislead actual and prospective 

purchasers into believing that the footwear and apparel sold by Defendants is manufactured by,

authorized by, or in some manner associated with Plaintiffs, which it is not. 

81. The likelihood of confusion, mistake, and deception engendered by Defendants’

infringement of Plaintiffs’ Marks is causing irreparable harm to the goodwill symbolized by the 

marks and the reputation for quality that they embody.

82. Defendants’ activities are likely to cause confusion before, during, and after the 

time of purchase because purchasers, prospective purchasers, and others viewing Defendants’

Infringing Products at the point of sale or on a wearer are likely—due to Defendants’ use of 

confusingly similar imitations of Plaintiffs’ Marks—to mistakenly attribute the footwear and 

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 60 Filed 07/26/16 Page 28 of 38
29- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR 

TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT

21184-0112/131203760.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, 10th Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Phone: 503.727.2000

Fax: 503.727.2222

apparel to Plaintiffs. This attribution is particularly damaging with respect to those people who 

perceive a defect or lack of quality in the Infringing Products. By causing a likelihood of 

confusion, mistake, and deception, Defendants are inflicting irreparable harm on the goodwill 

symbolized by Plaintiffs’ Marks and the reputation for quality that they embody.

83. On information and belief, Defendants continue to use the Infringing Logo and 

other confusingly similar imitations of Plaintiffs’ Marks in connection with the sale of footwear 

and apparel that directly compete with the footwear and apparel offered by Plaintiffs. 

Defendants began selling the Infringing Products well after adidas had established protectable 

rights in the adidas Marks, well after Reebok had established protectable rights in the Reebok 

Marks, and well after these marks had become famous. 

84. On further information and belief, Defendants knowingly, willfully, intentionally, 

and maliciously adopted and used confusingly similar imitations of Plaintiffs’ Marks. 

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Federal Trademark Infringement)

85. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference the allegations in the preceding 

paragraphs.

86. Defendants’ use of confusingly similar imitations of Plaintiffs’ Marks is likely to 

cause confusion, deception, and mistake by creating the false and misleading impression that 

Defendants’ goods are manufactured or distributed by Plaintiffs, or are associated or connected 

with Plaintiffs, or have the sponsorship, endorsement, or approval of Plaintiffs.

87. Defendants have used marks confusingly similar to Plaintiffs’ federally registered 

marks in violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114 and 1125(a). Defendants’ 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 Plaintiffs’ goodwill and reputation 

as symbolized by Plaintiffs’ Marks, for which Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law.

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 60 Filed 07/26/16 Page 29 of 38
30- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR 

TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT

21184-0112/131203760.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, 10th Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Phone: 503.727.2000

Fax: 503.727.2222

88. Defendants’ actions demonstrate an intentional, willful, and malicious intent to 

trade on the goodwill associated with Plaintiffs’ Marks to Plaintiffs’ great and irreparable harm.

89. Defendants caused and are likely to continue causing substantial injury to the 

public, to adidas, and to Reebok, and Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief and to recover 

Defendants’ profits, actual damages, enhanced profits and damages, costs, and reasonable 

attorneys’ fees under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1116, and 1117.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Federal Unfair Competition)

90. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference the allegations in the preceding 

paragraphs.

91. Defendants’ use of confusingly similar imitations of Plaintiffs’ Marks has caused 

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

impression that Defendants’ goods are manufactured or distributed by Plaintiffs, or are affiliated, 

connected, or associated with Plaintiffs, or have the sponsorship, endorsement, or approval of 

Plaintiffs.

92. Defendants have made false representations, false descriptions, and false 

designations of their goods in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). Defendants’ 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 Plaintiffs’ goodwill 

and reputation as symbolized by Plaintiffs’ Marks, for which Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy 

at law.

93. Defendants’ actions demonstrate an intentional, willful, and malicious intent to 

trade on the goodwill associated with Plaintiffs’ Marks to the great and irreparable injury of 

Plaintiffs.

94. Defendants’ conduct has caused, and is likely to continue causing, substantial 

injury to the public, to adidas, and to Reebok. Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief and to 

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 60 Filed 07/26/16 Page 30 of 38
31- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR 

TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT

21184-0112/131203760.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, 10th Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Phone: 503.727.2000

Fax: 503.727.2222

recover Defendants’ 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

(Federal Trademark Dilution of the Three-Stripe Mark and REEBOK Mark)

95. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference the allegations in the preceding 

paragraphs.

96. For decades, adidas and Reebok, respectively, have exclusively and continuously 

promoted and used their registered Three-Stripe Mark and REEBOK Mark, both in the United 

States and throughout the world. These marks became famous and well-known symbols of 

Plaintiffs and their products well before Defendants offered for sale the Infringing Products.

97. Defendants are making use in commerce of marks that dilute and are likely to 

dilute the distinctiveness of adidas’s Three-Stripe Mark and Reebok’s REEBOK Mark by 

eroding the public’s exclusive identification of these famous marks with adidas and Reebok, 

tarnishing and degrading the positive associations and prestigious connotations of the marks, and 

otherwise lessening the capacity of the marks to identify and distinguish Plaintiffs’ goods.

98. Defendants’ actions demonstrate an intentional, willful, and malicious intent to 

trade on the goodwill associated with Plaintiffs’ Marks or to cause dilution of the marks to the 

great and irreparable injury of Plaintiffs.

99. Defendants have caused and will continue to cause irreparable injury to adidas’s 

and Reebok’s goodwill and business reputations, and dilution of the distinctiveness and value of 

adidas’s and Reebok’s famous and distinctive Three-Stripe Mark and REEBOK Mark in 

violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c). Plaintiffs therefore are entitled to injunctive relief and to 

Defendants’ profits, actual damages, enhanced profits and damages, and reasonable attorneys’ 

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

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 60 Filed 07/26/16 Page 31 of 38
32- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR 

TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT

21184-0112/131203760.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, 10th Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Phone: 503.727.2000

Fax: 503.727.2222

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices)

100. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference the allegations in the preceding 

paragraphs.

101. Defendants have been and are passing off their goods as those of Plaintiffs, 

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

of Defendants’ goods, causing a likelihood of confusion as to Defendants’ affiliation, 

connection, or association with Plaintiffs, and otherwise damaging the public.

102. Defendants’ 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 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). 

103. Defendants’ unauthorized use of confusingly similar imitations of Plaintiffs’ 

Marks has caused and is likely to cause substantial injury to the public, to adidas, and to Reebok. 

Plaintiffs, therefore, are entitled to injunctive relief and to recover damages and, if appropriate, 

punitive damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees.

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 60 Filed 07/26/16 Page 32 of 38
33- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR 

TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT

21184-0112/131203760.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, 10th Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Phone: 503.727.2000

Fax: 503.727.2222

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Common Law Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition)

104. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference the allegations in the preceding 

paragraphs.

105. Defendants’ 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 Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy 

at law for this injury.

106. On information and belief, Defendants acted with full knowledge of Plaintiffs’ 

use of, and statutory and common law rights to, Plaintiffs’ Marks and without regard to the 

likelihood of confusion of the public created by Defendants’ activities.

107. Defendants’ actions demonstrate an intentional, willful, and malicious intent to 

trade on the goodwill associated with Plaintiffs’ Marks to the great and irreparable injury of 

Plaintiffs.

108. As a result of Defendants’ acts, Plaintiffs have been damaged in an amount not 

yet determined or ascertainable. At a minimum, however, Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive 

relief, to an accounting of Defendants’ profits, damages, and costs. Further, in light of the 

deliberate and malicious use of confusingly similar imitations of Plaintiffs’ Marks, and the need 

to deter Defendants from engaging in similar conduct in the future, Plaintiffs additionally are 

entitled to punitive damages.

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(State Trademark Dilution and Injury to Business Reputation)

109. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference the allegations in the preceding 

paragraphs.

110. Plaintiffs have extensively and continuously promoted and used the Three-Stripe 

Mark and the REEBOK Mark throughout the United States, and these marks became distinctive, 

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 60 Filed 07/26/16 Page 33 of 38
34- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR 

TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT

21184-0112/131203760.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, 10th Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Phone: 503.727.2000

Fax: 503.727.2222

famous, and well-known symbols of Plaintiffs’ goods well before Defendants began offering for 

sale the products complained of in this Complaint. 

111. Defendants’ conduct dilutes and is likely to dilute the distinctiveness of adidas’s

Three-Stripe Mark and Reebok’s REEBOK Mark by eroding the public’s exclusive identification 

of these marks with Plaintiffs, and tarnishing and degrading the positive associations and 

prestigious connotations of the marks, and otherwise lessening the capacity of the marks to 

identify and distinguish Plaintiffs’ goods.

112. Defendants are causing and will continue to cause irreparable injury to Plaintiffs’ 

goodwill and business reputations and dilution of the distinctiveness and value of Plaintiffs’ 

famous and distinctive marks 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 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); 

California, CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE § 14247 (West 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 

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 60 Filed 07/26/16 Page 34 of 38
35- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR 

TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT

21184-0112/131203760.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, 10th Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Phone: 503.727.2000

Fax: 503.727.2222

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); 

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).

113. Plaintiffs, therefore, are entitled to injunctive relief, damages, and costs, as well 

as, if appropriate, enhanced damages, punitive damages, and reasonable attorneys’ fees.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that:

1. Defendants and all of their agents, officers, employees, representatives, 

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

authority from Defendants, or in concert or participation with Defendants, and each of them, be 

enjoined from:

a. using the Infringing Logo on or in connection with Defendants’ goods;

b. using the Three-Stripe Mark or any other copy, reproduction, 

colorable imitation, or simulation of adidas’s Three-Stripe Mark on or 

in connection with Defendants’ goods;

c. using the Badge of Sport Mark or any other copy, reproduction, 

colorable imitation, or simulation of adidas’s Badge of Sport Mark on 

or in connection with Defendants’ goods;

d. using the REEBOK Mark or any other copy, reproduction, colorable 

imitation, or simulation of the REEBOK Mark on or in connection 

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 60 Filed 07/26/16 Page 35 of 38
36- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR 

TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT

21184-0112/131203760.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, 10th Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Phone: 503.727.2000

Fax: 503.727.2222

with Defendants’ goods;

e. using the RBK Mark or any other copy, reproduction, colorable 

imitation, or simulation of the RBK Mark on or in connection with 

Defendants’ goods;

f. using any trademark, name, logo, design, or source designation of any 

kind on or in connection with Defendants’ goods or services that is a 

copy, reproduction, colorable imitation, or simulation of, or 

confusingly similar to Plaintiffs’ trademarks, trade dresses, names, or 

logos;

g. using any trademark, name, logo, design, or source designation of any 

kind on or in connection with Defendants’ goods that is likely to cause 

confusion, mistake, deception, or public misunderstanding that such 

goods or services are produced or provided by Plaintiffs, or are 

sponsored or authorized by Plaintiffs, or are in any way connected or 

related to Plaintiffs;

h. using any trademark, name, logo, design, or source designation of any 

kind on or in connection with Defendants’ goods that dilutes or is 

likely to dilute the distinctiveness of Plaintiffs’ trademarks, trade 

dresses, names, or logos;

i. passing off, palming off, or assisting in passing off or palming off 

Defendants’ goods as those of Plaintiffs, or otherwise continuing any 

and all acts of unfair competition as alleged in this Complaint; and

j. advertising, promoting, offering for sale, or selling the Infringing 

Products or other similar goods.

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 60 Filed 07/26/16 Page 36 of 38
37- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR 

TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT

21184-0112/131203760.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, 10th Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Phone: 503.727.2000

Fax: 503.727.2222

2. Defendants be ordered to cease offering for sale, marketing, promoting, and 

selling and to recall all products sold under or bearing the RBX word mark, Infringing Logo, the 

Infringing Stripe Design or any other confusingly similar imitations of Plaintiffs’ Marks that are 

in Defendants’ possession or have been shipped by Defendants or under their authority, to any 

customer, including, but not limited to, any wholesaler, distributor, retailer, consignor, or 

marketer, and also to deliver to each such store or customer a copy of this Court’s order as it 

relates to said injunctive relief against Defendants; 

3. Defendants be ordered to deliver up for impoundment and for destruction, all 

footwear, apparel, bags, boxes, labels, tags, signs, packages, receptacles, advertising, sample 

books, promotional materials, stationery, or other materials in the possession, custody or under 

the control of Defendants that are found to adopt, infringe, or dilute any of Plaintiffs’ trademarks 

or that otherwise unfairly compete with Plaintiffs and their products; 

4. Defendants be compelled to account to Plaintiffs for any and all profits derived by 

Defendants from the sale or distribution of the Infringing Products; 

5. Plaintiffs be awarded all damages caused by the acts forming the basis of this 

Complaint; 

6. Based on Defendants’ knowing and intentional use of confusingly similar 

imitations of Plaintiffs’ Marks, the damages awarded be trebled and the award of Defendants’

profits be enhanced as provided for by 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a); 

7. Defendants be required to pay to Plaintiffs the costs and reasonable attorneys’ 

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

cited in this Complaint; 

8. Based on Defendants’ willful and deliberate infringement and/or dilution of 

Plaintiffs’ Marks, and to deter such conduct in the future, Plaintiffs be awarded punitive 

damages;

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 60 Filed 07/26/16 Page 37 of 38
38- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR 

TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT

21184-0112/131203760.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, 10th Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Phone: 503.727.2000

Fax: 503.727.2222

9. Plaintiffs be awarded prejudgment and post-judgment interest on all monetary 

awards; and 

10. Plaintiffs have such other and further relief as the Court may deem just. 

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

Plaintiffs respectfully demand a trial by jury on all claims and issues so triable.

DATED: July 26, 2016 PERKINS COIE LLP

By: /s/ Stephen M. Feldman

Stephen M. Feldman, OSB No. 932674

SFeldman@perkinscoie.com

1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Telephone: 503.727.2000

Facsimile: 503.727.2222

R. Charles Henn Jr. (admitted pro hac vice)

chenn@kilpatricktownsend.com

Charles H. Hooker III (admitted pro hac vice)

chooker@kilpatricktownsend.com

Nichole D. Chollet (admitted pro hac vice)

KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP

1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800

Atlanta, GA 30309

Telephone: 404.815.6500

Facsimile: 404.815.6555

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 60 Filed 07/26/16 Page 38 of 38