Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/167051326/Converse-v-Autonomie-Project-Complaint
Timestamp: 2018-04-24 11:34:45
Document Index: 604530875

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1051', '§ 1121', '§ 1331', '§ 1391', '§ 1114', '§ 1114', '§ 1114', '§ 1125', '§ 1125', '§ 1125', '§ 1125', '§ 1125', '§ 1125', '§ 1114', '§ 1125', '§ 1125']

Converse v. Autonomie Project - Complaint | Diversity Jurisdiction | Trade Dress
Converse v. Autonomie Project - Complaint
Description: Converse v. Autonomie Project - Complaint
Case 1:13-cv-12220 Document 1 Filed 09/09/13 Page 1 of 18
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS __________________________________________ ) CONVERSE INC., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-12220 ) AUTONOMIE PROJECT, INC. ) ) Defendant. ) Jury Trial Demanded __________________________________________) COMPLAINT Plaintiff, Converse Inc. (“Converse”), for its complaint against Defendant, Autonomie Project, Inc. (“Autonomie”), based on provisional knowledge and on information and belief as appropriate, alleges as follows: The Parties 1. Converse is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of
Delaware with a principal place of business at One High Street, North Andover, Massachusetts 01845. 2. On information and belief, Autonomie is a corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Massachusetts with a principal place of business at 2 Hagar Street, #2, Jamaica Plain, Massachusetts 02130.
Jurisdiction and Venue 3. This is an action for trademark infringement, false designation of origin, unfair
competition, trademark dilution, and unfair business practices. This action arises under the Trademark Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C. § 1051, et seq. (“Lanham Act”), Massachusetts General Law
Case 1:13-cv-12220 Document 1 Filed 09/09/13 Page 2 of 18
Chapter 110H, Massachusetts General Law Chapter 93A, and the common law of the State of Massachusetts. 4. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to at least 15
U.S.C. § 1121(a) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a) & (b), and 1367(a). 5. On information and belief, Autonomie operates a website at
www.autonomieproject.com, where Autonomie advertises, offers for sale, and sells footwear and other products to customers, including customers in the State of Massachusetts and in this District. 6. On information and belief, this Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over
Autonomie based upon its contacts with this forum, including at least having a principal place of business here, regularly and intentionally doing business here, and committing acts giving rise to this lawsuit here. 7. and (c). General Allegations – Converse’s Marks 8. Converse owns common law and federal trademark rights in the appearance of the Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to at least 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)
outsole, midsole, and upper designs commonly used in connection with Converse’s Chuck Taylor All Star shoes, including but not limited to the design of two stripes on a midsole, the design of a toe cap, the design of a multi-layered toe bumper featuring diamonds and line patterns, and the relative position of these elements to each other, as well as U.S. Trademark Registrations Nos. 1,588,960; 3,258,103; 4,062,112; and 4,065,482 (collectively, the “Converse Trade Dress”) (copies of these Registrations are attached as Exhibits 1-4). Trademark
Registration No. 1,588,960 has become incontestable and constitutes conclusive evidence of the
Case 1:13-cv-12220 Document 1 Filed 09/09/13 Page 3 of 18
validity of the trademark and of Converse’s ownership of and exclusive right to use the trademark. Exemplary images of the Converse Trade Dress are shown Illustration 1 below. Illustration 1: Examples of the Converse Trade Dress
First introduced around 1917, Converse has spent millions of dollars advertising Converse’s advertisements and
and promoting shoes bearing the Converse Trade Dress.
promotions of the Converse Trade Dress have appeared in print, on the Internet, on billboards, in videos, and at retail. Example advertisements of the Converse Trade Dress are attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 5. Over the past four years alone, Converse has spent more than $92 million advertising and promoting the Converse Trade Dress in the United States. 10. Converse has sold shoes bearing the Converse Trade Dress throughout the world
and in every state of the United States. Converse sells shoes bearing the Converse Trade Dress -3-
Case 1:13-cv-12220 Document 1 Filed 09/09/13 Page 4 of 18
through its own retail stores, on the Internet, and through a wide variety of retailers including, for example, Nordstrom, Kohl’s, JC Penney, Foot Locker, Saks Fifth Avenue, and independent shoe retailers of all sizes throughout the country. Since its introduction around 1917, Converse has sold over one billion pairs of shoes bearing the Converse Trade Dress. Over the past decade, Converse sold over 153 million pairs of shoes bearing the Converse Trade Dress throughout the United States, and those sales earned Converse more than $2.4 billion in gross U.S. revenue. Over the past five and one half years alone, Converse sold well over 100 million pairs of shoes bearing the Converse Trade Dress throughout the United States, and those sales earned Converse more than $1.8 billion in gross U.S. revenue. 11. The Converse Trade Dress is also the subject of widespread and unsolicited public
attention. This publicity extends from acclaim in books, magazines, and newspapers to frequent appearances in movies and television shows. As representative examples, the Converse Trade Dress is the subject of books including “Chucks!: The Phenomenon of Converse Chuck Taylor All Stars,” and “Chuck Taylor, All Star,” where the Converse Trade Dress is described as an icon of American footwear and the most famous athletic shoe in history. Example excerpts from these books are attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 6. The Converse Trade Dress has also been featured in numerous newspaper and magazine articles, and is the focus of Internet chatter and fan sites such as chucksconnection.com, which celebrates the Converse Trade Dress and its presence throughout American culture. Example articles and website images illustrating the unsolicited publicity of the Converse Trade Dress are attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 7. 12. As a result of Converse’s long-term, continuous, and substantial use, advertising,
and sales of shoes bearing the Converse Trade Dress, and the widespread publicity and attention that has been paid to the Converse Trade Dress, the Converse Trade Dress is famous and has
Case 1:13-cv-12220 Document 1 Filed 09/09/13 Page 5 of 18
acquired substantial secondary meaning m as consumers h have come to uniquely associate it t as a source id dentifier of Converse. C
legations – Autonomie A rized Activi ities General All ’s Unauthor 13. On in nformation and belief, Autonomie A se ells, offers t to sell, distri ibutes, prom motes,
and/or ad dvertises foo otwear beari ing confusin ngly similar imitations o of the Converse Trade D Dress (the “Infr ringing Prod ducts”). 14 4. On in nformation and belief, Autonomie A se ells, offers t to sell, distri ibutes, prom motes,
and/or ad dvertises the e Infringing Products in several styl les, includin ng at least its “Ethletic H Hightop,” “E Ethletic Low w-top,” “Eth hletic Child dren’s Sneak kers,” and “Ethletic Y Youth Snea akers” footwear r products. Illustration n 2 below compares c th he Converse e Trade Dre ess to images of represent tative Infring ging Product ts.
Illu ustration 2: Exemplary E Im mages of the e Converse T Trade Dress ( (left), Exemp plary Images of Au utonomie’s In nfringing Pro oducts (right t)
Auto onomie Proj ject’s “Ethletic High-to op S Sneakers”
Case 1:13-cv-12220 Document 1 Filed 09/09/13 Page 6 of 18
Illustration 2: Exemplary Images of the Converse Trade Dress (left), Exemplary Images of Autonomie’s Infringing Products (right)
Autonomie Project’s “Ethletic Low-top Sneakers”
Autonomie Project’s “Ethletic Children’s Sneakers”
Autonomie Project’s “Ethletic Youth Sneakers”
Case 1:13-cv-12220 Document 1 Filed 09/09/13 Page 7 of 18
Outsol le for Auton nomie Proje ect’s “Ethletic” Sho oe Products s
Conve erse used th he Converse e Trade Dre ess extensive ely and con ntinuously b before
Autonom mie began se elling, offerin ng to sell, distributing, d promoting, or advertisin ng the Infrin nging Products. 16. Conve erse has ne ever authori ized Autono omie to sell, offer to sell, distri ibute,
promote, or advertise e the Infringi ing Products s. 17. On August 31, 20 012, Conver rse mailed a cease and desist letter r to Autonom mie’s
president t at its busi iness addres ss in Massa achusetts. T The letter, a attached as Exhibit 8, gave Autonom mie notice th hat various shoes Auton nomie was p promoting, offering to sell, and se elling, infringe the t Converse e Trade Dres ss. 18. On its s website, Autonomie A st tates that co onsumers ha ave informed d Autonomie e that
its Infring ging Products embody th he style of and/or a appear r similar to C Converse’s C Chuck Taylo or All Star shoe es, which ar re the most prominent p and a famous e example of Converse’s products be earing the Conv verse Trade Dress. At least one co omment fro om a consum mer on Auto onomie’s we ebsite states tha at Autonomi ie’s shoes “a are just copy ying convers se chucks sty yle.” Auton nomie itself s states on its we ebsite that it ts products are a the “new west incarna ation of Con nverse” and t that the “nu umber
Case 1:13-cv-12220 Document 1 Filed 09/09/13 Page 8 of 18
one” response from consumers when seeing Autonomie’s shoes is that “they look like [Converse’s] Chuck Taylor’s.” Images from Autonomie’s website evidencing these statements are attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 9. 19. On information and belief – and as evidenced by the facts and circumstances
alleged above – Autonomie’s infringements have been intentional and willful.
Count I: Trademark Infringement under Section 32(1) of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)) 20. Converse re-alleges each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 19
above, inclusive, and incorporates them by reference herein. 21. Autonomie’s offers to sell, sale, distribution, promotion, and/or advertisement of
Infringing Products violates Section 32(1) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1). 22. The Converse Trade Dress is federally registered, and is entitled to protection The Converse Trade Dress has a distinctive
under both federal law and common law.
appearance using unique and non-functional designs. Converse has extensively and continuously promoted and used the Converse Trade Dress for many decades in the United States and worldwide. Through that extensive and continuous use, the Converse Trade Dress has become a famous and well-known indicator of the origin and quality of Converse footwear. The Converse Trade Dress has also acquired substantial secondary meaning in the marketplace. 23. Trademark Registration No. 1,588,960 has become incontestable and constitutes
conclusive evidence of the validity of trademark and of Converse’s ownership of and exclusive right to use the trademark. 24. Autonomie’s use of the Converse Trade Dress and of colorable imitations thereof
is likely to cause consumer confusion as to the origin and/or sponsorship/affiliation of the -8-
Case 1:13-cv-12220 Document 1 Filed 09/09/13 Page 9 of 18
Infringing Products, at least by creating the false and misleading impression that the Infringing Products are manufactured by, authorized by, or otherwise associated with Converse. 25. Autonomie’s use of the Converse Trade Dress and of colorable imitations thereof
has caused, and unless enjoined, will continue to cause substantial and irreparable injury to Converse for which Converse has no adequate remedy at law, including at least substantial and irreparable injury to the goodwill and reputation for quality associated with the Converse Trade Dress. 26. On information and belief, Autonomie’s use of the Converse Trade Dress and of
colorable imitations thereof has been intentional, willful, and malicious. Autonomie’s bad faith is evidenced at least by the similarity of the Infringing Products to the Converse Trade Dress, as demonstrated in Illustration 2 above, by Autonomie’s own admissions on at least its website, and by Autonomie’s continuing disregard of Converse’s rights after receiving Converse’s cease and desist letter. 27. Converse is entitled to injunctive relief, and Converse is also entitled to recover
Autonomie’s profits, actual damages, enhanced profits and damages, costs, and reasonable attorney fees under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1116, and 1117.
Count II: False Designation of Origin/Unfair Competition under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) 28. Converse re-alleges each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 27
above, inclusive, and incorporates them by reference herein. 29. Autonomie’s offers to sell, sale, distribution, promotion, and/or advertisement of
Infringing Products, in direct competition with Converse, violates Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). -9-
Case 1:13-cv-12220 Document 1 Filed 09/09/13 Page 10 of 18
The Converse Trade Dress is federally registered, and is entitled to protection The Converse Trade Dress has a distinctive
appearance using unique and non-functional designs. Converse has extensively and continuously promoted and used the Converse Trade Dress for many decades in the United States and worldwide. Through that extensive and continuous use, the Converse Trade Dress has become a famous and well-known indicator of the origin and quality of Converse footwear. The Converse Trade Dress has also acquired substantial secondary meaning in the marketplace. 31. Trademark Registration No. 1,588,960 has become incontestable and constitutes
conclusive evidence of the validity of trademark and of Converse’s ownership of and exclusive right to use the trademark. 32. Autonomie’s use of the Converse Trade Dress and of colorable imitations thereof
constitutes a false designation of origin that is likely to cause consumer confusion, mistake, or deception as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of the Infringing Products by creating the false and misleading impression that the Infringing Products are manufactured by, authorized by, or otherwise associated with Converse. 33. Autonomie’s use of the Converse Trade Dress and of colorable imitations thereof
has caused, and unless enjoined, will continue to cause substantial and irreparable injury to Converse for which Converse has no adequate remedy at law, including at least substantial and irreparable injury to the goodwill and reputation for quality associated with the Converse Trade Dress. 34. On information and belief, Autonomie’s use of the Converse Trade Dress and of
colorable imitations thereof has been intentional, willful, and malicious. Autonomie’s bad faith is evidenced at least by the similarity of the Infringing Products to the Converse Trade Dress, as
Case 1:13-cv-12220 Document 1 Filed 09/09/13 Page 11 of 18
demonstrated in Illustration 2 above, by Autonomie’s own admissions on at least its website, and by Autonomie’s continuing disregard of Converse’s rights after receiving Converse’s cease and desist letter. 35. Converse is entitled to injunctive relief, and Converse is also entitled to recover
Autonomie’s profits, actual damages, enhanced profits and damages, costs, and reasonable attorney fees under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1125(a), 1116, and 1117.
Count III: Dilution under Section 43(c) of the Lanham Act 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c) 36. Converse re-alleges each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 35
above, inclusive, and incorporates them by reference herein. 37. Autonomie’s offers to sell, sale, distribution, and/or advertisement of Infringing
Products violates Section 43(c) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c). 38. The Converse Trade Dress is federally registered, and is entitled to protection The Converse Trade Dress has a distinctive
appearance using unique and non-functional designs. Converse has extensively and continuously promoted and used the Converse Trade Dress for many decades in the United States and worldwide. Through that extensive and continuous use, the Converse Trade Dress has become a famous and well-known indicator of the origin and quality of Converse footwear. The Converse Trade Dress has also acquired substantial secondary meaning in the marketplace. 39. Trademark Registration No. 1,588,960 has become incontestable and constitutes
conclusive evidence of the validity of trademark and of Converse’s ownership of and exclusive right to use the trademark. 40. The Converse Trade Dress is famous and has acquired substantial secondary
Case 1:13-cv-12220 Document 1 Filed 09/09/13 Page 12 of 18
meaning and fame in the marketplace before Autonomie commenced use of its colorable imitations of the Converse Trade Dress in connection with the Infringing Products. 41. Autonomie’s use of the Converse Trade Dress and of colorable imitations thereof
is likely to cause, and has caused, dilution of the famous Converse Trade Dress at least by eroding the public’s exclusive identification of the famous Converse Trade Dress with Converse and by lessening the capacity of the famous Converse Trade Dress to identify and distinguish Converse footwear. 42. Autonomie’s use of the Converse Trade Dress and of colorable imitations thereof
has caused, and unless enjoined, will continue to cause substantial and irreparable injury to Converse for which Converse has no adequate remedy at law, including at least substantial and irreparable injury to the goodwill and reputation for quality associated with the Converse Trade Dress. 43. On information and belief, Autonomie’s use of the Converse Trade Dress and of
colorable imitations thereof has been intentional, willful, and malicious. Autonomie’s bad faith is evidenced at least by the similarity of the Infringing Products to the Converse Trade Dress, as demonstrated in Illustration 2 above, by Autonomie’s own admissions on at least its website, and by Autonomie’s continuing disregard of Converse’s rights after receiving Converse’s cease and desist letter. 44. Converse is entitled to injunctive relief, and Converse is also entitled to recover
Autonomie’s profits, actual damages, enhanced profits and damages, costs, and reasonable attorney fees under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1125(c), 1116, and 1117.
Count IV: Common Law Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition 45. Converse re-alleges each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 44 - 12 -
Case 1:13-cv-12220 Document 1 Filed 09/09/13 Page 13 of 18
above, inclusive, and incorporates them by reference herein. 46. Autonomie’s offer to sell, sale, distribution, promotion, or advertisement of
Infringing Products, in direct competition with Converse, constitutes common law trademark infringement and unfair competition. 47. The Converse Trade Dress is federally registered, and is entitled to protection The Converse Trade Dress has a distinctive
appearance using unique and non-functional designs. Converse has extensively and continuously promoted and used the Converse Trade Dress for many decades in the United States and worldwide. Through that extensive and continuous use, the Converse Trade Dress has become a famous and well-known indicator of the origin and quality of Converse footwear. The Converse Trade Dress has also acquired substantial secondary meaning in the marketplace. 48. Autonomie’s use of the Converse Trade Dress and of colorable imitations thereof
is likely to cause consumer confusion as to the origin or sponsorship of the Infringing Products by creating the false and misleading impression that the Infringing Products are manufactured by, authorized by, or otherwise associated with Converse. 49. Autonomie’s use of the Converse Trade Dress and of colorable imitations thereof
has caused, and unless enjoined, will continue to cause substantial and irreparable injury to Converse for which Converse has no adequate remedy at law, including at least substantial and irreparable injury to the goodwill and reputation for quality associated with the Converse Trade Dress. 50. On information and belief, Autonomie’s use of the Converse Trade Dress and of
Case 1:13-cv-12220 Document 1 Filed 09/09/13 Page 14 of 18
demonstrated in Illustration 2 above, by Autonomie’s own admissions on at least its website, and by Autonomie’s continuing disregard of Converse’s rights after receiving Converse’s cease and desist letter. 51. Converse is entitled to injunctive relief, and Converse is also entitled to recover
Autonomie’s profits, actual damages, punitive damages, costs, and reasonable attorney fees.
Count V: Dilution under Massachusetts General Law c. 110H 52. Converse re-alleges each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 51
above, inclusive, and incorporates them by reference herein. 53. Autonomie’s offer to sell, sale, distribution, or advertisement of Infringing
Products, in direct competition with Converse, violates Chapter 110H of Massachusetts General Law. 54. The Converse Trade Dress is federally registered, and is entitled to protection The Converse Trade Dress has a distinctive
appearance using unique and non-functional designs. Converse has extensively and continuously promoted and used the Converse Trade Dress for many decades in the United States and worldwide. Through that extensive and continuous use, the Converse Trade Dress has become a famous and well-known indicator of the origin and quality of Converse footwear. The Converse Trade Dress has also acquired substantial secondary meaning in the marketplace. 55. The Converse Trade Dress is famous and has acquired substantial secondary
meaning in the marketplace long before Autonomie commenced use of its colorable imitations of the Converse Trade Dress in connection with the Infringing Products. 56. Autonomie’s use of the Converse Trade Dress and of colorable imitations thereof
Case 1:13-cv-12220 Document 1 Filed 09/09/13 Page 15 of 18
is likely to cause, and has caused, dilution of the famous Converse Trade Dress at least by eroding the public’s exclusive identification of the famous Converse Trade Dress with Converse and by lessening the capacity of the famous Converse Trade Dress to identify and distinguish Converse footwear. Autonomie’s use of the Converse Trade Dress and of colorable imitations thereof has caused confusion as the source of the Infringing Products by creating the false and misleading impression that the Infringing Products are manufactured by, authorized by, or otherwise associated with Converse. 57. Autonomie’s use of the Converse Trade Dress and of colorable imitations thereof
has caused, and unless enjoined, will continue to cause substantial and irreparable injury to Converse for which Converse has no adequate remedy at law, including at least substantial and irreparable injury to the goodwill and reputation for quality associated with the Converse Trade Dress. 58. On information and belief, Autonomie’s use of the Converse Trade Dress and of
colorable imitations thereof has been intentional, willful, and malicious. Autonomie’s bad faith is evidenced at least by the similarity of the Infringing Products to the Converse Trade Dress, as demonstrated in Illustration 2 above, by Autonomie’s own admissions on at least its website, and by Autonomie’s continuing disregard of Converse’s rights after receiving Converse’s cease and desist letter. 59. Converse is entitled to injunctive relief.
Count VI: Unfair Business Practices under Massachusetts General Law c. 93A 60. Converse re-alleges each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 59
above, inclusive, and incorporates them by reference herein. 61. Autonomie’s offers to sell, sale, distribution, promotion, and/or advertisement of - 15 -
Case 1:13-cv-12220 Document 1 Filed 09/09/13 Page 16 of 18
Infringing Products, in direct competition with Converse, violates Chapter 93A of Massachusetts General Law. 62. The Converse Trade Dress is federally registered, and is entitled to protection The Converse Trade Dress has a distinctive
appearance using unique and non-functional designs. Converse has extensively and continuously promoted and used the Converse Trade Dress for many decades in the United States and worldwide. Through that extensive and continuous use, the Converse Trade Dress has become a famous and well-known indicator of the origin and quality of Converse footwear. The Converse Trade Dress has also acquired substantial secondary meaning in the marketplace. 63. Autonomie’s use of the Converse Trade Dress and of colorable imitations thereof
constitutes a false designation of origin that is likely to cause consumer confusion, mistake, or deception as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of the Infringing Products by creating the false and misleading impression that the Infringing Products are manufactured by, authorized by, or otherwise associated with Converse. 64. Autonomie’s use of the Converse Trade Dress and of colorable imitations thereof
has caused, and unless enjoined, will continue to cause substantial and irreparable injury to Converse for which Converse has no adequate remedy at law, including at least substantial and irreparable injury to the goodwill and reputation for quality associated with the Converse Trade Dress. 65. On information and belief, Autonomie’s use of the Converse Trade Dress and of
colorable imitations thereof has been intentional, willful, and malicious. Autonomie’s bad faith is evidenced at least by the similarity of the Infringing Products to the Converse Trade Dress, as demonstrated in Illustration 2 above, by Autonomie’s own admissions on at least its website, and
Case 1:13-cv-12220 Document 1 Filed 09/09/13 Page 17 of 18
by Autonomie’s continuing disregard of Converse’s rights after receiving Converse’s cease and desist letter. 66. Converse is entitled to injunctive relief, and Converse is also entitled to recover
actual damages, enhanced damages, costs, and reasonable attorney fees under Chapter 93A of Massachusetts General Law. Jury Demand Converse demands a trial by jury. Relief Sought WHEREFORE, Converse respectfully prays for: A. Judgment that Autonomie has (i) willfully infringed the Converse Trade Dress in
violation of § 1114 of Title 15 in the United States Code, (ii) willfully used false designations of origin/unfair competition in violation of § 1125(a) of Title 15 in the United States Code, (iii) willfully diluted the Converse Trade Dress in violation of § 1125(c) of Title 15 in the United States Code, (iv) willfully infringed the Converse Trade Dress and engaged in unfair competition in violation of the common law of Massachusetts; (v) willfully diluted the Converse Trade Dress in violation of Chapter 110H of the Massachusetts General Law; and (iv) willfully engaged in unfair business practices in violation of Chapter 93A of the Massachusetts General Law. B. A preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting Autonomie and each of its
agents, employees, servants, attorneys, successors and assigns, and all others in privity or acting in concert therewith from continuing infringement, false designation of origin, unfair competition, and dilution of the Converse Trade Dress, including at least from selling, offering to sell, distributing, or advertising the Infringing Products, or any other products that use a copy, reproduction, or colorable imitation of the Converse Trade Dress;
Case 1:13-cv-12220 Document 1 Filed 09/09/13 Page 18 of 18
An order directing the destruction of all Infringing Products, or any other products
that use a copy, reproduction, or colorable imitation of the Converse Trade Dress in Autonomie’s possession or control, including the destruction of all advertising materials related to the Infringing Products in Autonomie’s possession or control, including on the Internet; D. An award of Autonomie’s profits, actual damages, enhanced profits and damages,
punitive damages, costs, and reasonable attorney fees for Autonomie’s trademark infringements and dilution, and acts of unfair competition and unfair business practices; and E. Such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted, Dated: September 9, 2013 /s/ Erin E. Bryan Erin E. Bryan (BBO No. 675955) BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. 28 State Street, Suite 1800 Boston, MA 02109-1705 Telephone: (617) 720-9600 Facsimile: (617)720-9601 ebryan@bannerwitcoff.com Christopher J. Renk Erik S. Maurer Eric J. Hamp BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. 10 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 3000 Chicago, Illinois 60606 Telephone: (312) 463-5000 Facsimile: (312) 463-5001 crenk@bannerwitcoff.com emaurer@bannerwitcoff.com ehamp@bannerwitcoff.com Attorneys for Plaintiff, Converse Inc.
Case 1:13-cv-12220 Document 1-1 Filed 09/09/13 Page 1 of 2
Autonomie Project, Inc. Essex County, MA
NOTE: (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY) IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
Banner & Witcoff, Ltd. 28 State Street, Suite 1800 Boston, MA 02109
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
’ 1 U.S. Government Plaintiff U.S. Government Defendant ’ 3 Federal Question (U.S. Government Not a Party) Diversity (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)
III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only) PTF Citizen of This State ’ 1 Citizen of Another State Citizen or Subject of a Foreign Country ’ 2 ’ 3 DEF ’ 1 ’ ’ 2 3 and One Box for Defendant) PTF DEF Incorporated or Principal Place ’ 4 ’ 4 of Business In This State Incorporated and Principal Place of Business In Another State Foreign Nation ’ 5 ’ 6 ’ 5 ’ 6
CONTRACT ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ 110 Insurance 120 Marine 130 Miller Act 140 Negotiable Instrument 150 Recovery of Overpayment & Enforcement of Judgment 151 Medicare Act 152 Recovery of Defaulted Student Loans (Excludes Veterans) 153 Recovery of Overpayment of Veteran’s Benefits 160 Stockholders’ Suits 190 Other Contract 195 Contract Product Liability 196 Franchise ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ REAL PROPERTY 210 Land Condemnation 220 Foreclosure 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 240 Torts to Land 245 Tort Product Liability 290 All Other Real Property TORTS PERSONAL INJURY 310 Airplane 315 Airplane Product Liability 320 Assault, Libel & Slander 330 Federal Employers’ Liability 340 Marine 345 Marine Product Liability 350 Motor Vehicle 355 Motor Vehicle Product Liability 360 Other Personal Injury 362 Personal Injury Medical Malpractice CIVIL RIGHTS 440 Other Civil Rights 441 Voting 442 Employment 443 Housing/ Accommodations 445 Amer. w/Disabilities Employment 446 Amer. w/Disabilities Other 448 Education PERSONAL INJURY ’ 365 Personal Injury Product Liability ’ 367 Health Care/ Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability ’ 368 Asbestos Personal Injury Product Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY ’ 370 Other Fraud ’ 371 Truth in Lending ’ 380 Other Personal Property Damage ’ 385 Property Damage Product Liability PRISONER PETITIONS Habeas Corpus: ’ 463 Alien Detainee ’ 510 Motions to Vacate Sentence ’ 530 General ’ 535 Death Penalty Other: ’ 540 Mandamus & Other ’ 550 Civil Rights ’ 555 Prison Condition ’ 560 Civil Detainee Conditions of Confinement FORFEITURE/PENALTY ’ 625 Drug Related Seizure of Property 21 USC 881 ’ 690 Other BANKRUPTCY ’ 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 ’ 423 Withdrawal 28 USC 157 PROPERTY RIGHTS ’ 820 Copyrights ’ 830 Patent ’ 840 Trademark ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ LABOR 710 Fair Labor Standards Act 720 Labor/Management Relations 740 Railway Labor Act 751 Family and Medical Leave Act 790 Other Labor Litigation 791 Employee Retirement Income Security Act ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ SOCIAL SECURITY 861 HIA (1395ff) 862 Black Lung (923) 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) 864 SSID Title XVI 865 RSI (405(g)) ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ OTHER STATUTES 375 False Claims Act 400 State Reapportionment 410 Antitrust 430 Banks and Banking 450 Commerce 460 Deportation 470 Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations 480 Consumer Credit 490 Cable/Sat TV 850 Securities/Commodities/ Exchange 890 Other Statutory Actions 891 Agricultural Acts 893 Environmental Matters 895 Freedom of Information Act 896 Arbitration 899 Administrative Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision 950 Constitutionality of State Statutes
IMMIGRATION ’ 462 Naturalization Application ’ 465 Other Immigration Actions
’ 1 Original Proceeding ’ 2 Removed from State Court ’ 3 Remanded from Appellate Court ’ 4 Reinstated or Reopened ’ 5 Transferred from Another District
’ 6 Multidistrict Litigation
15 U.S.C. 1114, et seq., 15 U.S.C. 1125, et seq.
Trademark infringement, false designation of origin/unfair competition, trademark dilution
DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint: ’ Yes ’ No JURY DEMAND: DOCKET NUMBER
’ CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION VII. REQUESTED IN UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. COMPLAINT: VIII. RELATED CASE(S) (See instructions): IF ANY JUDGE
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP DATE
/s/ Erin E. Bryan
Case 1:13-cv-12220 Document 1-1 Filed 09/09/13 Page 2 of 2
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows: I.(a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and then the official, giving both name and title. County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting in this section "(see attachment)". Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X" in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below. United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here. United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box. Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked. Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity cases.) Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this section for each principal party. Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If the nature of suit cannot be determined, be sure the cause of action, in Section VI below, is sufficient to enable the deputy clerk or the statistical clerk(s) in the Administrative Office to determine the nature of suit. If the cause fits more than one nature of suit, select the most definitive. Origin. Place an "X" in one of the six boxes. Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts. Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441. When the petition for removal is granted, check this box. Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing date. Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date. Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or multidistrict litigation transfers. Multidistrict Litigation. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1407. When this box is checked, do not check (5) above. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P. Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction. Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.
VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases. Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.
Case 1:13-cv-12220 Document 1-2 Filed 09/09/13 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS 1. Title of case (name of first party on each side only) Converse Inc. v. Autonomie Project, Inc.
2. Category in which the case belongs based upon the numbered nature of suit code listed on the civil cover sheet. (See local rule 40.1(a)(1)). I. 410, 441, 470, 535, 830*, 891, 893, 895, R.23, REGARDLESS OF NATURE OF SUIT. 110, 130, 140, 160, 190, 196, 230, 240, 290,320,362, 370, 371, 380, 430, 440, 442, 443, 445, 446, 448, 710, 720, 740, 790, 820*, 840*, 850, 870, 871. 120, 150, 151, 152, 153, 195, 210, 220, 245, 310, 315, 330, 340, 345, 350, 355, 360, 365, 367, 368, 375, 385, 400, 422, 423, 450, 460, 462, 463, 465, 480, 490, 510, 530, 540, 550, 555, 625, 690, 751, 791, 861-865, 890, 896, 899, 950. *Also complete AO 120 or AO 121. for patent, trademark or copyright cases.
4. Has a prior action between the same parties and based on the same claim ever been filed in this court? YES
(See 28 USC
7. Do all of the parties in this action, excluding governmental agencies of the united states and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (“governmental agencies”), residing in Massachusetts reside in the same division? - (See Local Rule 40.1(d)). YES A. NO
If yes, in which division do all of the non-governmental parties reside? Eastern Division
If no, in which division do the majority of the plaintiffs or the only parties, excluding governmental agencies, residing in Massachusetts reside? Eastern Division
8. If filing a Notice of Removal - are there any motions pending in the state court requiring the attention of this Court? (If yes, submit a separate sheet identifying the motions)
(PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT) ATTORNEY'S NAME Erin E. Bryan (BBO # 675955) ADDRESS Banner & Witcoff, Ltd., 28 State Street, Suite 1800, Boston, MA 02109 TELEPHONE NO. 617-720-9600
(CategoryForm12-2011.wpd - 12/2011)
Case 1:13-cv-12220 Document 1-3 Filed 09/09/13 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:13-cv-12220 Document 1-3 Filed 09/09/13 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:13-cv-12220 Document 1-4 Filed 09/09/13 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:13-cv-12220 Document 1-4 Filed 09/09/13 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:13-cv-12220 Document 1-5 Filed 09/09/13 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:13-cv-12220 Document 1-5 Filed 09/09/13 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:13-cv-12220 Document 1-6 Filed 09/09/13 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:13-cv-12220 Document 1-6 Filed 09/09/13 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:13-cv-12220 Document 1-7 Filed 09/09/13 Page 1 of 6
Case 1:13-cv-12220 Document 1-7 Filed 09/09/13 Page 2 of 6
Case 1:13-cv-12220 Document 1-7 Filed 09/09/13 Page 3 of 6
Case 1:13-cv-12220 Document 1-7 Filed 09/09/13 Page 4 of 6
Case 1:13-cv-12220 Document 1-7 Filed 09/09/13 Page 5 of 6
Case 1:13-cv-12220 Document 1-7 Filed 09/09/13 Page 6 of 6
Case 1:13-cv-12220 Document 1-8 Filed 09/09/13 Page 1 of 29
Case 1:13-cv-12220 Document 1-8 Filed 09/09/13 Page 2 of 29
Case 1:13-cv-12220 Document 1-8 Filed 09/09/13 Page 3 of 29
Case 1:13-cv-12220 Document 1-8 Filed 09/09/13 Page 4 of 29
Case 1:13-cv-12220 Document 1-8 Filed 09/09/13 Page 5 of 29
Case 1:13-cv-12220 Document 1-8 Filed 09/09/13 Page 6 of 29
Case 1:13-cv-12220 Document 1-8 Filed 09/09/13 Page 7 of 29
Case 1:13-cv-12220 Document 1-8 Filed 09/09/13 Page 8 of 29
Case 1:13-cv-12220 Document 1-8 Filed 09/09/13 Page 9 of 29
Case 1:13-cv-12220 Document 1-8 Filed 09/09/13 Page 10 of 29
Case 1:13-cv-12220 Document 1-8 Filed 09/09/13 Page 11 of 29
Case 1:13-cv-12220 Document 1-8 Filed 09/09/13 Page 12 of 29
Case 1:13-cv-12220 Document 1-8 Filed 09/09/13 Page 13 of 29
Case 1:13-cv-12220 Document 1-8 Filed 09/09/13 Page 14 of 29
Case 1:13-cv-12220 Document 1-8 Filed 09/09/13 Page 15 of 29
Case 1:13-cv-12220 Document 1-8 Filed 09/09/13 Page 16 of 29
Case 1:13-cv-12220 Document 1-8 Filed 09/09/13 Page 17 of 29
Case 1:13-cv-12220 Document 1-8 Filed 09/09/13 Page 18 of 29
Case 1:13-cv-12220 Document 1-8 Filed 09/09/13 Page 19 of 29
Case 1:13-cv-12220 Document 1-8 Filed 09/09/13 Page 20 of 29
Case 1:13-cv-12220 Document 1-8 Filed 09/09/13 Page 21 of 29
Case 1:13-cv-12220 Document 1-8 Filed 09/09/13 Page 22 of 29
Case 1:13-cv-12220 Document 1-8 Filed 09/09/13 Page 23 of 29
Case 1:13-cv-12220 Document 1-8 Filed 09/09/13 Page 24 of 29
Case 1:13-cv-12220 Document 1-8 Filed 09/09/13 Page 25 of 29
Case 1:13-cv-12220 Document 1-8 Filed 09/09/13 Page 26 of 29
Case 1:13-cv-12220 Document 1-8 Filed 09/09/13 Page 27 of 29
Case 1:13-cv-12220 Document 1-8 Filed 09/09/13 Page 28 of 29
Case 1:13-cv-12220 Document 1-8 Filed 09/09/13 Page 29 of 29
Case 1:13-cv-12220 Document 1-9 Filed 09/09/13 Page 1 of 7
Case 1:13-cv-12220 Document 1-9 Filed 09/09/13 Page 2 of 7
Case 1:13-cv-12220 Document 1-9 Filed 09/09/13 Page 3 of 7
Case 1:13-cv-12220 Document 1-9 Filed 09/09/13 Page 4 of 7
Case 1:13-cv-12220 Document 1-9 Filed 09/09/13 Page 5 of 7
The ChucksConnection is a website about the Converse All Star "Chuck Taylor" canvas basketball shoe, the classic American sneaker, as seen in films, photographs, and television shows, or described in reviews, articles, and stories about why people like wearing chucks. Learn all about the lore of chucks and their media buzz. Click on the above shoelace links to access our main feature pages. Purchase shoes, shoelaces, clothing, totebags, books about chucks, or DVDs through our secure online stores. Chucks are for everyone, and for wear every day. With dozens of models and color combinations available from the classic black high top to the latest print pattern or seasonal color low cut, it's easy to find that perfect pair for the look you want and the right shoelaces to go with them here at The ChucksConnection.
The ChucksConnection is pleased to welcome three new affiliate stores. Now your selection of
Purchase Shoelaces For Your Chucks:
Choose From Our Wide Variety of Colors, Lengths, and Styles
Shoelace Guide
Shoelace Information Photos of Shoelaces Classic Athletic Fat or Retro Print or Special Knee High and Tips On Chucks Shoelaces Shoelaces Shoelaces Shoelaces Deck out your chucks in the latest print laces . We now carry skulls, tribal band, camouflage, checkers and star patterns in different colors and lengths. Click on the print or special shoelaces image link above to order them.
Purchase Converse All Star Chuck Taylor Sneakers:
Get High Top or Low Cut Ox Chucks in Their Most Popular Core Colors
Monochrome Navy Blue Black
Optical White Natural White
Case 1:13-cv-12220 Document 1-9 Filed 09/09/13 Page 6 of 7
Our shoe selection is better than ever! Check out our newly redone high top and low cut oxford order pages. Click on the high top or low cut oxford links below to see the full selection of chucks available now for back to school. Top of Page. People Wearing High Top Chucks: Kids Wearing High Top Chucks: People Wearing Low Cut Chucks: Kids Wearing Low Cut Chucks:
Go to the menu of all available high top models:
Go to the menu of all available low cut oxford models:
Go to the menu of chucks for little kids, toddlers, and Infants:
Do you wear a Chuck Taylor men’s size 10, 10.5 or 11 (12, 12.5 or 13 women’s)? The ChucksConnection is selling off over sixty pairs of high tops used for our photo shoots. Go to the Sale Index. There are also a dozen well worn pairs of high tops available. Well Worn Chucks For Sale. Top of Page
Purchase Clothing and Accessories:
Sweatshirts Baseball Caps
Comic Strip About People Who Like To Wear Chucks
The Hunter & Holmes Mystery Series
Biography Chucks! The Phenomenon of of Chuck Taylor Converse Chuck Taylor All Stars
Follow chucksconnection.com on
Secure on-line transactions for this web site are processed by Paypal using the Roman Cart system. We accept PayPal, Visa, Discover, MasterCard, and American Express for these transactions.
Legal Disclaimer. The All Star and Converse names and Chuck Taylor logo are registered trademarks of Converse, Inc. of North Andover, Massachusetts, USA. They are used on this web site to describe products that the authors have purchased, own and wear all the time. These terms, along with the word "chucks", are the familiar names that people use to identify and describe these products. This site is not affiliated with the Converse company in any way, except that we like and use their products, and have some of their licensed products available for sale through our ChucksConnection on-line ordering service and affiliate company Classic Sports Shoes. Opinions expressed on this site are those of the authors and may not necessarily reflect the official views of The ChucksConnection, Converse, Inc. or its subsidiary companies. Please note that we are not the Converse Company. To contact the Converse Company, go to www.converse.com. Contact Information: If you have an article or other information about Chuck Taylor shoes to submit to this website, or would like to contact us, our email address is mail@chucksconnection.com . For issues regarding an order from our online store, contact customerservice@halpeterson.com . To submit photos, email chucksphotos@chucksconnection.com .
Case 1:13-cv-12220 Document 1-9 Filed 09/09/13 Page 7 of 7
© 1998-2013 The ChucksConnection, a division of Hal Peterson Media Services. Back to the top of this page.
Case 1:13-cv-12220 Document 1-10 Filed 09/09/13 Page 1 of 9
Case 1:13-cv-12220 Document 1-10 Filed 09/09/13 Page 2 of 9
Case 1:13-cv-12220 Document 1-10 Filed 09/09/13 Page 3 of 9
Case 1:13-cv-12220 Document 1-10 Filed 09/09/13 Page 4 of 9
Case 1:13-cv-12220 Document 1-10 Filed 09/09/13 Page 5 of 9
Case 1:13-cv-12220 Document 1-10 Filed 09/09/13 Page 6 of 9
Case 1:13-cv-12220 Document 1-10 Filed 09/09/13 Page 7 of 9
Case 1:13-cv-12220 Document 1-10 Filed 09/09/13 Page 8 of 9
Case 1:13-cv-12220 Document 1-10 Filed 09/09/13 Page 9 of 9
Case 1:13-cv-12220 Document 1-11 Filed 09/09/13 Page 1 of 5
Who’s Chuck Taylor anyway? « Autonomie Project’s Blog
Case 1:13-cv-12220 Document 1-11 Filed 09/09/13 Page 2 of 5
Who’s Chuck Taylor anyway ?
Posted by autonomieproject under Fashion & Shopping | Tags: chuck taylor, converse, ethletic, pf flyers, sneakers, sweatshops |
Post Date : April 25, 2008 at 8:15 pm Category : Fashion & Shopping Tags: chuck taylor, converse, ethletic, pf flyers, sneakers, sweatshops Do More : You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
So the number one generic response to someone seeing our Ethletic shoes is “Oooooooooo, they look like Chuck Taylor’s.” Then we SIGH. And say, “Noooooooooo, these are just SO much better”. After all, Converse’s version of this classic shoe is made in a dirty sweatshop in China with totally toxic materials. They are, just overall, BAD for our earth. But curiosity got the best of us and we started to wonder: how did the international phenom of Converse and their uber popular Chuck Taylor even come into being? A quick search on the internet solved the mystery. It all started way back in 1908 (wow!), when Marquis Mills Converse fell down the stairs, inspiring the Massachusetts entrepreneur (yikes, we’re neighbors!!) to create a non-slip rubber soled shoe. Thus began the Converse Rubber Shoe Company.
Within a short 2 years, Converse’s new company was selling over 4,000 pairs of shoes a day (sorry, but we must insert here shameless plug to buy Ethletics). In 1915, the company produced their first athletic shoe made for tennis, and in 1917, the Converse All-Star as we know it today was born. ( Damn...so when we say classic, we really really mean classic! This shoe is 100 years old!). The shoes were actually not that popular. But then this seemingly awkward basketball player named Charles H. Taylor came to Converse complaining of sore feet.
With his new comfy basketball boots on, Chuck Taylor became the ambassador for Converse, selling and promoting the shoes all the way to 1969.
http://autonomieproject.wordpress.com/2008/04/25/whos-chuck-taylor-anyway/[11/8/2012 3:59:25 PM]
Case 1:13-cv-12220 Document 1-11 Filed 09/09/13 Page 3 of 5
In 1966, basketball teams and their fans got fed up with the traditional red high-top and demanded that more colors and styles be produced so that they could wear their team colors. Of course though, like every small business, not everything remained so peachy keen. From the 1970′s on, Converse started to feel the heat from new competitors like Adidas, Nike and Reebok. They were all of sudden ripped of their title as the preferred shoe for the National Basketball Association (they are after all not that comfortable or even remotedly suited for today’s game). The company filed for bankruptcy in January of 2001. At that same time, they closed their very last USA factory and went offshore to China (yes, it’s time for a collective sob). In 2003, the company sold for $305 million (so much for bankruptcy) to their rival (and just overall evil corporation) Nike. While Nike has certainly revitalized the brand and made sure that every youth in the entire world is wearing a pair of Converse, they also decreased the quality of the shoes (namely using low-grade totally fake rubber and switching from 2-ply canvas to 1-ply “textile” – whatever that is). And let’s not even go into the laundry list of human rights and sweatshop abuses the company is infamous for. Now a fashion brand much more so than a sports brand, Converse has inspired all kinds of knock-offs, such as PF Flyers, which are surprisingly still in existence and owned by New Balance. They also interestingly lay claim to be the original American sneaker brand (although they debuted much later in 1937), as well as creating the “breakthrough” low-top courtesy of yet another old timer “basketball legend” Bob Cousy. Somehow, “Cousies” just don’t ring like “Chucks”! We at Autonomie of course prefer the newest incarnation of Converse: our ultra-cute, ultraethical, ultra-eco, truly one of kind Ethletics!
But if you have one of the old-school, made-in-the-USA Chucks (that are probably at this point totally falling a part), share your story and post a photo of the shoes under comments!
6 RESPONSES TO “WHO’S CHUCK TAYLOR ANYWAY ? ”
Case 1:13-cv-12220 Document 1-11 Filed 09/09/13 Page 4 of 5
Chuck Taylors were the only shoes I’d wear in highschool- i happened to live next to a Chuck Taylor outlet store in New Orleans that was liquidating all the funky colors no one wanted to buy back then… so needless to say I owned purple, brown, paprika, white, light blue and pink Converse! I didn’t wear them for too long after highschool( cause i wore the soles to nothing on every pair), but when i pulled a pair back out and wore it downtown Asheville NC about 3 or 4 years ago a group of kids stopped me on the street And were like ” Oooh Your Bo Bo’s are REAL, they the real thang, those are OLD!” Yeah, sort of- ehem. All my Converse are no longer, all worn into complete obliteration. Can’t wait to sport my new classic Ethletics and see what the kids have to say now. Think Ya’ll may ever make pink ones? Reply
To a Socially-Conscious, Sustainable Dad… « Autonomie Project’s Blog Says:
[...] school days when he used to sport Chuck Taylors. Now, of course, make sure Dad’s aware that Chucks aren’t what they used to be and he should always look for the ethical [...] Reply
what are you talking about>?! Chuck Taylor is a complete LEGEND!!! and converse chucks are the real deal, your shoes are just copying converse chucks style and if your shoes so good why did you make them look like chucks? get your own design and stop bad mouthing converse chucks and Chuck Taylor. Reply
AAID Says:
I am really after a pair of these, but does anyone notice the prices creeping up? Why is this? Reply
Penny Kubis Says:
Hi, i just thought i’d post additionally let you know your blogs layout usually genuinely messed up on distinct K-Melon browser. Anyhow retain up special good work.
Case 1:13-cv-12220 Document 1-11 Filed 09/09/13 Page 5 of 5
the chucks made in china fall apart way to easily. Reply
Documents Similar To Converse v. Autonomie Project - Complaint
Squatty Potty v. Tiger Medical - Complaint
Coach vs Farmers Market & Auction
Cooley et al v. A-C Equipment Services et al - Document No. 4
Murray v Oliver Et Al
Dorothy Jean Ramsey and Wayne A. Ramsey, Her Husband v. Mellon National Bank and Trust Company, 350 F.2d 874, 3rd Cir. (1965)
Jeffry Vodenichar v. Halcon Energy Properties Inc, 3rd Cir. (2013)
Schlumberger Industries, Incorporated v. National Surety Corporation Fireman's Fund Insurance Company the Travelers Indemnity Company the Globe Indemnity Company American Motorists Insurance Company Puritan Insurance Company Prudential Reinsurance Company United States Fire Insurance Company Royal Insurance Company of America Jackson & Companies the American Insurance Company, (Two Cases), 36 F.3d 1274, 4th Cir. (1994)
William Templeman and Alyce Templeman v. Chris Craft Corporation, 770 F.2d 245, 1st Cir. (1985)
State College Water Authority Lawsuit
Myles v. Sapta, 10th Cir. (1998)
King Taco trademark complaint.pdf
Collins v. County of Monterey Et Al. Complaint for Damages 6-11-14
Hawaii-Pacific Apparel Group, Inc. v. Cleveland Browns Football Company, LLC et al - Document No. 45
RL34559_110105
Trammell v. Caudill et al - Document No. 4
Gametek v. Backflip Studios
McBride v. Indiana Lumbermens Mutual Insurance Company et al - Document No. 4
Intellectual Property Magazine (UK; Jul-Aug 2012 issue) - Charles Colman, Gucci America v. Guess Case Study, titled 'Handbags at Dawn' (play on British expression)
Shashi v. Thirty Three Threads - Complaint
Dexas Int'l v. Menard - Complaint
IPR2017-00096 - Final Decision
Columbia v. Seirus - Order Awarding Prejudgment Interest
IPR2017-00095 - Final Decision
Contaldi v. Schmidt - Order Granting MTD (without prejudice)
Deckers v. Romeo and Juliette - Verdict
Apple v. Samsung - Order Re Daubert Motions
In re Maatita - Order for Supplemental Briefing
Deckers v. Gildan USA - Complaint
Ty v. Target - Complaint
Evriholder Prods. v. Art and Cook - Complaint
Zip Top v. BlueAvocado - Complaint
Hachigian Industries Inc. v. Evolve USA - Complaint
Aurora LED Tech. v. Putco - Complaint
Apple v. Samsung - Order Denying Samsung's MSJ (re AOM)
Hafco Foundy & Machine v. GMS Mine Repair - Verdict
Let s Go Aero v. Amazon - Complaint
Gavrieli Brands v. Soto Massini - Complaint
Hafco Foundy & Machine v. GMS Mine Repair - Order on motion for new trial
Columbia v. Seirus - Order Reactivating Appeal
AMSA v. Advance Carts - Complaint