1- SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

21184-0110/130582242.1

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

PERKINS COIE LLP

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

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; and ADIDAS AG, a foreign 

entity,

Plaintiffs,

v.

COUGAR SPORT, INC., a New York 

corporation,

Defendant.

No. 3:15-cv-01856-SI

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

(Counterfeiting, Trademark Infringement, 

Unfair Competition, Trademark Dilution, and 

Deceptive Trade Practices)

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Case 3:15-cv-01856-SI Document 52 Filed 04/13/16 Page 1 of 25
2- SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

21184-0110/130582242.1

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 Second Amended Complaint against Defendant Cougar Sport, Inc. (“Cougar Sport” 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”) as well as 

its famous logo, depicted below, known as the “Badge of Sport Mark”:

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

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

adidas Marks.

3. Despite adidas’s rights in the famous Three-Stripe Mark, Cougar Sport is 

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

selling apparel bearing counterfeit and/or confusingly similar imitations of adidas’s Three-Stripe 

Mark, as depicted in the examples below (the “Infringing Apparel”): 

COUNTERFEIT APPAREL

Cougar Sport’s Counterfeit Apparel adidas Genuine Apparel

Case 3:15-cv-01856-SI Document 52 Filed 04/13/16 Page 2 of 25
3- SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

21184-0110/130582242.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Phone: 503.727.2000

Fax: 503.727.2222

INFRINGING APPAREL

4. Moreover, Cougar Sport’s Infringing Apparel also bears a logo comprised of four 

stripes, which is confusingly similar to adidas’s Badge of Sport Mark, as depicted below (the 

“Infringing Logo”):

Case 3:15-cv-01856-SI Document 52 Filed 04/13/16 Page 3 of 25
4- SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

21184-0110/130582242.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Phone: 503.727.2000

Fax: 503.727.2222

5. Cougar Sport’s apparel is not manufactured by adidas, nor is Cougar Sport 

connected or affiliated with, or authorized by, adidas in any way. Cougar Sport’s merchandise is 

likely to cause confusion, deceive the public regarding its source, and dilute and tarnish the 

distinctive quality of the adidas Marks.

6. This is an action at law and in equity for counterfeiting, 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 Cougar Sport from 

marketing or selling apparel bearing counterfeit and/or confusingly similar imitations of the 

adidas Marks; (b) award adidas monetary damages and to treble any monetary damages award; 

(c) require Cougar Sport to disgorge all profits from sales of the Infringing Apparel; and 

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

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

7. 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. 

8. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Cougar Sport because, on information 

and belief, (a) Cougar Sport has marketed, distributed, offered for sale, and/or sold to persons 

within the State of Oregon, (b) Cougar Sport regularly transacts and conducts business within the 

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

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

Case 3:15-cv-01856-SI Document 52 Filed 04/13/16 Page 4 of 25
5- SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

21184-0110/130582242.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Phone: 503.727.2000

Fax: 503.727.2222

9. 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

10. 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.

11. 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 adidas Marks. adidas AG and adidas America, Inc., as 

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

12. On information and belief, Defendant Cougar Sport, Inc. is a New York 

corporation, having a principal place of business at 55 W. 39th Street, Suite 305, New York, 

New York 10018.

IV. FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

A. adidas’s Famous Three-Stripe Mark

13. 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.

Case 3:15-cv-01856-SI Document 52 Filed 04/13/16 Page 5 of 25
6- SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

21184-0110/130582242.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Phone: 503.727.2000

Fax: 503.727.2222

14. 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.

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

sold in the United States and worldwide. Examples of adidas apparel bearing the Three-Stripe 

Mark are depicted on the following pages, and pages from adidas catalogs featuring additional 

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

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

by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) on May 6, 1997, for the Three-Stripe 

Mark, as depicted below, 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.

17. 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.”

Case 3:15-cv-01856-SI Document 52 Filed 04/13/16 Page 6 of 25
7- SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

21184-0110/130582242.1

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 4.

18. 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.

19. 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 6.

20. 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.” 

Case 3:15-cv-01856-SI Document 52 Filed 04/13/16 Page 7 of 25
8- SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

21184-0110/130582242.1

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 7.

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

Mark covering apparel (Reg. Nos. 870,136, 2,016,963, 3,063,742, 3,063,745, 3,183,656, 

3,236,505, and 4,910,643). Copies of the Certificates of Registration for each of these marks are 

attached collectively as Exhibit 8.

22. 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 9.

23. One well-known mark incorporating the Three-Stripe Mark is adidas’s Badge of 

Sport Mark which is depicted below:

24. adidas also owns numerous federal 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. 

Case 3:15-cv-01856-SI Document 52 Filed 04/13/16 Page 8 of 25
9- SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

21184-0110/130582242.1

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 these registrations are incontestable. Copies of the Certificates of Registration for 

each of these marks are attached collectively as Exhibit 10.

25. 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. 

26. 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 Michigan, Arizona State 

University, the University of Louisville, Mississippi 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, John Wall, Tim Duncan, Damian Lillard, and Derrick Rose; (c) baseball players Josh 

Harrison, Justin Upton, Kris Bryant, Carlos Gomez, Melvin Upton Jr., and James Shields; 

(d) professional golfer Sergio Garcia; 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.

27. 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. 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, 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), 

Case 3:15-cv-01856-SI Document 52 Filed 04/13/16 Page 9 of 25
10- SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

21184-0110/130582242.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Phone: 503.727.2000

Fax: 503.727.2222

“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 26, 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). Copies of the above-referenced 

articles are attached collectively as Exhibit 11. 

28. 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.

29. 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.” See Exhibit 11 (Brettman, Allan, “Going ‘All In’ Against Nike,” The Oregonian, 

March 15, 2011). Similarly, adidas recently launched its “Sport 15” advertising campaign, 

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

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

Tennessee Titans. A February 13, 2015 article from AdWeek describing the advertising 

Case 3:15-cv-01856-SI Document 52 Filed 04/13/16 Page 10 of 25
11- SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

21184-0110/130582242.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Phone: 503.727.2000

Fax: 503.727.2222

campaign is attached as Exhibit 12. 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.

30. 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. Cougar Sport’s Unlawful Activities

31. In blatant disregard of adidas’s rights, Cougar Sport has been designing, sourcing, 

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

commerce its Infringing Apparel, which bears counterfeit and/or confusingly similar imitations 

of the adidas Marks, including the Infringing Logo, as shown in the examples depicted below:

Cougar Sport’s Counterfeit Apparel

Case 3:15-cv-01856-SI Document 52 Filed 04/13/16 Page 11 of 25
12- SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

21184-0110/130582242.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Phone: 503.727.2000

Fax: 503.727.2222

Cougar Sport’s Infringing Apparel

32. On April 10, 2014, Cougar Sport applied to register the following four-stripe 

mark with the PTO in connection with “pants, shirts, shorts, jackets”: 

Case 3:15-cv-01856-SI Document 52 Filed 04/13/16 Page 12 of 25
13- SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

21184-0110/130582242.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Phone: 503.727.2000

Fax: 503.727.2222

Cougar Sport’s application ultimately was amended to seek registration on the Supplemental 

Register and matured into Supplemental Reg. No. 4733403 on May 5, 2015.

33. On February 12, 2015, Cougar Sport applied to register the four-stripe mark 

depicted below with the PTO, application Serial No. 86532591, in connection with “clothing, 

namely, pants, shirts, shorts, and jackets”:

On information and belief, Cougar Sport’s application Serial No. 86532591 is pending before the 

PTO.

34. On July 2, 2015, Cougar Sport applied to register the following four-stripe mark 

with the PTO, application Serial No. 86681902, in connection with “clothing, namely, pants, 

shirts, shorts, and jackets”:

Case 3:15-cv-01856-SI Document 52 Filed 04/13/16 Page 13 of 25
14- SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

21184-0110/130582242.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Phone: 503.727.2000

Fax: 503.727.2222

On information and belief, Cougar Sport’s application Serial No. 86681902 is pending before the 

PTO.

35. The spurious three parallel stripe mark featured on the Infringing Apparel bears

three parallel stripes down the outer seam of the apparel in a manner identical to or substantially 

indistinguishable from adidas’s Three-Stripe Mark. 

36. The four parallel stripe mark featured on the Infringing Apparel bears four 

parallel stripes down the outer seam of the apparel in a manner likely to be confused with 

adidas’s famous Three-Stripe Mark.

37. The Infringing Logo featured on the Infringing Apparel is also likely to be 

confused with the adidas Marks.

38. On information and belief, Cougar Sport had knowledge of the adidas Marks 

when it began designing, manufacturing, sourcing, distributing, marketing, promoting, offering 

for sale, and/or selling the Infringing Apparel. On further information and belief, Cougar Sport 

intentionally adopted and used counterfeit and/or confusingly similar imitations of the adidas 

Marks 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.

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

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

Cougar Sport associated or connected with adidas, or licensed, authorized, sponsored, endorsed, 

or approved by adidas in any way.

Case 3:15-cv-01856-SI Document 52 Filed 04/13/16 Page 14 of 25
15- SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

21184-0110/130582242.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Phone: 503.727.2000

Fax: 503.727.2222

40. adidas used the adidas Marks extensively and continuously before Cougar Sport 

began using the Infringing Logo and designing, manufacturing, sourcing, distributing, marketing, 

promoting, offering for sale, and/or selling counterfeit and/or confusingly similar imitations of 

adidas’s apparel.

41. 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.

42. Cougar Sport’s use of counterfeit and/or confusingly similar imitations of the 

adidas Marks is likely to deceive, confuse, and mislead purchasers and prospective purchasers 

into believing that the apparel sold by Cougar Sport 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 Cougar Sport’s infringement and dilution of the adidas Marks is 

causing irreparable harm to the goodwill symbolized by the marks and the reputation for quality 

that they embody.

43. Cougar Sport’s activities are likely to cause confusion before, during, and after 

the time of purchase because purchasers, prospective purchasers, and others viewing Cougar 

Sport’s Infringing Apparel at the point of sale or on a wearer are likely—due to Cougar Sport’s 

use of counterfeit and/or confusingly similar imitations of the adidas Marks—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 Cougar Sport’s products. By causing a likelihood of 

confusion, mistake, and deception, Cougar Sport is inflicting irreparable harm on the goodwill 

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

44. On information and belief, Cougar Sport continues to use counterfeit and/or 

confusingly similar imitations of the adidas Marks in connection with the sale of apparel that 

competes with the apparel manufactured and sold by adidas. Cougar Sport began selling the 

Infringing Apparel well after adidas had established protectable rights in the adidas Marks and 

well after the adidas Marks had become famous.

Case 3:15-cv-01856-SI Document 52 Filed 04/13/16 Page 15 of 25
16- SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

21184-0110/130582242.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Phone: 503.727.2000

Fax: 503.727.2222

45. On further information and belief, Cougar Sport knowingly, willfully, 

intentionally, and maliciously adopted and used counterfeit and/or confusingly similar imitations 

of the adidas Marks.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

(COUNTERFEITING)

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

paragraphs.

47. Defendant has knowingly manufactured, imported, distributed, marketed, 

promoted, offered for sale, and/or sold apparel that bears spurious marks that are identical to and 

substantially indistinguishable from adidas’s Three-Stripe Mark.

48. As a result of Defendant’s manufacturing, importing, distributing, marketing, 

promoting, offering for sale, and/or selling of apparel bearing three stripes as identified above, 

Defendant is using a counterfeit mark, as that term is defined in 15 U.S.C. § 1116(d)(1)(B) of the 

Lanham Act, and, accordingly, Defendant is liable under the anti-counterfeiting provisions of the 

Lanham Act.

49. Defendant’s use of a spurious mark identical to or substantially indistinguishable 

from the Three-Stripe Mark violates 15 U.S.C. § 1114, and Defendant’s activities are causing 

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 its federally registered Three-Stripe Mark, for which adidas has no adequate 

remedy at law.

50. Defendant is likely to continue causing substantial injury to the public and to 

adidas, and adidas is entitled to injunctive relief, an accounting for profits, damages, costs, and 

reasonable attorneys’ fees under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1116, and 1117. Additionally, pursuant to 

15 U.S.C. § 1117(b), adidas is entitled to trebling of the greater of profits or damages, and to 

Case 3:15-cv-01856-SI Document 52 Filed 04/13/16 Page 16 of 25
17- SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

21184-0110/130582242.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Phone: 503.727.2000

Fax: 503.727.2222

prejudgment interest. Alternatively, and at adidas’s election, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c), 

adidas is entitled to recover statutory damages for Defendant’s willful use of a counterfeit mark.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Federal Trademark Infringement)

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

paragraphs.

52. Defendant’s use of confusingly similar imitations of the adidas Marks 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.

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

adidas Marks 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 adidas Marks, for which adidas has no adequate remedy at law.

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

trade on the goodwill associated with adidas’s federally registered adidas Marks to adidas’s great 

and irreparable injury.

55. 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.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Federal Unfair Competition)

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

paragraphs.

Case 3:15-cv-01856-SI Document 52 Filed 04/13/16 Page 17 of 25
18- SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

21184-0110/130582242.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Phone: 503.727.2000

Fax: 503.727.2222

57. Defendant’s use of confusingly similar imitations of the adidas Marks 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.

58. 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 adidas Marks, for which adidas has no adequate remedy at law.

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

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

adidas.

60. 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.

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices)

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

paragraphs.

62. 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 

Case 3:15-cv-01856-SI Document 52 Filed 04/13/16 Page 18 of 25
19- SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

21184-0110/130582242.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Phone: 503.727.2000

Fax: 503.727.2222

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).

63. Defendant’s unauthorized use of confusingly similar imitations of the adidas 

Marks 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.

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Common Law Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition)

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

paragraphs.

65. 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.

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

of, and statutory and common law rights to, the adidas Marks and without regard to the 

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

Case 3:15-cv-01856-SI Document 52 Filed 04/13/16 Page 19 of 25
20- SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

21184-0110/130582242.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Phone: 503.727.2000

Fax: 503.727.2222

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

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

adidas.

68. 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 the adidas Marks, and the need 

to deter Defendant from engaging in similar conduct in the future, adidas additionally is entitled 

to punitive damages.

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Federal Trademark Dilution)

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

paragraphs.

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

registered adidas Marks both in the United States and throughout the world. The marks therefore 

had become famous and well-known symbols of adidas and its products well before Defendant 

offered for sale the Infringing Apparel. 

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

the distinctiveness of the adidas Marks by eroding the public’s exclusive identification of these 

famous marks with adidas, tarnishing and degrading the positive associations and prestigious 

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

distinguish adidas’s goods.

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

trade on the goodwill associated with the adidas Marks or to cause dilution of the adidas Marks 

to the great and irreparable injury of adidas.

Case 3:15-cv-01856-SI Document 52 Filed 04/13/16 Page 20 of 25
21- SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

21184-0110/130582242.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Phone: 503.727.2000

Fax: 503.727.2222

73. 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 the famous 

adidas Marks 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.

SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(State Trademark Dilution)

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

paragraphs.

75. adidas has extensively and continuously promoted and used the registered adidas 

Marks both in the United States and throughout the world, and the marks had thereby become a 

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

Defendant designed, sourced, manufactured, imported, distributed, marketed, promoted, offered 

for sale, or sold the Infringing Apparel. Each of the adidas Marks is widely recognized by the 

general consuming public as a designation that adidas is the source of the goods bearing the 

mark.

76. Defendant’s unauthorized imitations of the adidas Marks dilute and are likely to 

dilute the distinctiveness of adidas Marks by eroding the public’s exclusive identification of 

these famous and well-known marks with adidas, 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 adidas’s goods and services.

77. 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 the famous 

adidas 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-

Case 3:15-cv-01856-SI Document 52 Filed 04/13/16 Page 21 of 25
22- SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

21184-0110/130582242.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Phone: 503.727.2000

Fax: 503.727.2222

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 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). adidas therefore is 

entitled to injunctive relief, damages, and costs, as well as, if appropriate, enhanced damages and 

reasonable attorneys’ fees.

Case 3:15-cv-01856-SI Document 52 Filed 04/13/16 Page 22 of 25
23- SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

21184-0110/130582242.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Phone: 503.727.2000

Fax: 503.727.2222

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. using the Infringing Logo on or in connection with Defendant’s goods;

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

or selling the Infringing Apparel;

c. using adidas’s Three-Stripe Mark or any other copy, reproduction, colorable 

imitation or simulation of the Three-Stripe Mark on or in connection with 

Defendant’s products;

d. using adidas’s Badge of Sport Mark or any other copy, reproduction, colorable 

imitation, or simulation of the Badge of Sport Mark on or in connection with 

Defendant’s products;

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

connection with Defendant’s goods that is a copy, reproduction, colorable 

imitation, or simulation of, or confusingly similar to the adidas Marks;

f. 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;

g. 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

Case 3:15-cv-01856-SI Document 52 Filed 04/13/16 Page 23 of 25
24- SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

21184-0110/130582242.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Phone: 503.727.2000

Fax: 503.727.2222

h. 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 Second Amended Complaint;

2. Defendant be ordered to recall and retrieve all products bearing the adidas Marks 

or any other confusingly similar variation thereof, which have been shipped by Defendant or 

under its authority, to any store or customer, including, but not limited to, any retail store, 

marketer, distributor, or distribution center, 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 Defendant;

3. 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;

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

Defendant from the sale or distribution of counterfeit or otherwise infringing goods as described 

in this Second Amended Complaint;

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

Second Amended Complaint; 

6. Based on Defendant’s knowing and intentional use of counterfeit and/or 

confusingly similar imitations of the adidas Marks, 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), or 

alternatively, and at adidas’s election, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c), for any goods bearing a 

counterfeit mark, adidas be awarded statutory damages for Defendant’s willful use of a 

counterfeit mark;

Case 3:15-cv-01856-SI Document 52 Filed 04/13/16 Page 24 of 25
25- SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

21184-0110/130582242.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Phone: 503.727.2000

Fax: 503.727.2222

7. 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 Second Amended Complaint;

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

adidas Marks, and to deter such conduct in the future, adidas be awarded punitive damages; 

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

damages and profits awards; and

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

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

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

DATED: April 13, 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

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-01856-SI Document 52 Filed 04/13/16 Page 25 of 25