Source: https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/890-f-3d-747-742271529
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 16:39:05+00:00

Document:
890 F.3d 747 (9th Cir. 2018), 16-35204, adidas America, Inc. v. Skechers USA, Inc.
Party Name: ADIDAS AMERICA, INC., a Delaware corporation; adidas AG; adidas International Marketing B.V., a foreign entity, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. SKECHERS USA, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, Marco A. Hernandez, District Judge, Presiding, D.C. No. 3:15-cv-01741-HZ.
Jonathan Hacker (argued), OMelveny & Myers LLP, Washington, D.C.; Jordan Raphael, Jeffrey A. Barker, Mark A. Samuels, and Daniel M. Petrocelli, OMelveny & Myers LLP, Los Angeles, California; for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Diarmuid F. OScannlain, Richard R. Clifton, and Jacqueline H. Nguyen, Circuit Judges.
Skechers USA, Inc. appeals the district courts issuance of a preliminary injunction prohibiting it from selling shoes that allegedly infringe and dilute adidas America, Inc.s Stan Smith trade dress and Three-Stripe trademark. We hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing the preliminary injunction as to adidass claim that Skecherss Onix shoe infringes on adidass unregistered trade dress of its Stan Smith shoe. We conclude, however, that the district court erred in issuing a preliminary injunction as to adidass claim that Skecherss Cross Court shoe infringes and dilutes its Three-Stripe mark. Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part.
Elle, InStyle, and Vogue . The Stan Smith also has frequently appeared on lists of the most important or influential sneakers of all time and has earned industry accolades such as Footwear News s 2014 "Shoe of the Year." That same year, adidas announced that the Stan Smith had become its top-selling shoe of all time, selling more than 40 million pairs worldwide.
adidas filed the present lawsuit against Skechers on September 14, 2015, alleging, among other things, that Skecherss Onix shoe infringes on and dilutes the unregistered trade dress of adidass Stan Smith shoe (both pictured below).
​adidas filed a motion for preliminary injunction to prohibit Skechers from manufacturing, distributing, advertising, selling, or offering for sale the Onix and Cross Court. The district court granted adidass motion and issued the preliminary injunction, finding that adidas established all the Winter factors. See Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20, 129 S.Ct. 365, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008) ("A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.").
Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 876 (9th Cir. 2009). "A district court abuses its discretion in issuing a preliminary injunction if its decision is based on either an erroneous legal standard or clearly erroneous factual findings ...." Negrete v. Allianz Life Ins. Co. of N.A., 523 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2008). "The legal issues underlying the injunction are reviewed de novo because a district court would necessarily abuse its discretion if it based its ruling on an erroneous view of law." GoTo.com, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co., 202 F.3d 1199, 1204 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). By contrast, the district courts factual findings are reviewed for clear error. See Lahoti v. VeriCheck, Inc., 586 F.3d 1190, 1195-96 (9th Cir. 2009).
Skechers contests only two of the factors under Winter, specifically, the district courts findings that adidas showed a likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm. Because the analysis for Skecherss Onix and Cross Court shoes differ, we take them each in turn.
Skechers challenges the district courts finding that adidas demonstrated a likelihood of success on its claim that Skecherss Onix shoe infringes on and dilutes adidass unregistered Stan Smith trade dress.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.