Fashion Law Journal
Introduction
Fashion plagiarism is increasing in the fashion industry across the world, and companies frequently charge their competitors with plagiarizing designs. Imitation has long been a component of fashion, but fast fashion and mass manufacturing have worsened the problem. Fashion designers dedicate a great amount of time and effort to design exclusive items, but the fashion design protection varies by nation and is not a simple task to pursue. Compared to book or painting, clothing and shoes involve use along with fashion, rendering it hard to subject it to copyright protection. Instead, designers usually resort to trade dress and trademark protection in order to protect against infringement of their brand image.
One of the best-known fashion trademark and copyright cases is the Adidas vs. Skechers case (2015-2019). The case is significant as it illustrates the application of copyright, trademark, and trade dress law to fashion. Although copyright defends artistic creations, trademarks and trade dress assist in defending the identity of a brand. The case provided a significant example of how courts address claims of design copying in fashion. This paper will examine the legal arguments, design comparisons, and ultimate decision to determine whether Skechers illegally copied Adidas or whether the similarities were merely common industry trends.
Case Background
The Adidas vs. Skechers case was a dispute between two major footwear brands: Adidas, a well-known global sportswear company, and Skechers, a California-based brand known for making affordable shoes inspired by popular designs.
In 2015, Adidas brought a lawsuit against Skechers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, alleging that Skechers had infringed on two of its iconic designs—the Stan Smith sneaker and the three-stripe trademark. Adidas contended that Skechers’ “Onix” sneaker was nearly identical to the Stan Smith, with the same shape, perforated stripes, and green heel. Adidas also accused Skechers of ripping off its three-stripe logo, a registered trademark, that it claimed might confuse consumers and dilute its brand identity.
Adidas’ complaint was on the grounds of trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, alleging that Skechers’ identical designs would confuse consumers. The case also involved a trade dress infringement since Adidas claimed that Skechers had imitated the overall appearance of the Stan Smith sneaker, making it difficult for shoppers to differentiate between brands. Adidas further charged Skechers with unfair competition and “passing off,” i.e., Skechers was supposedly attempting to capitalize on Adidas’ already established reputation.
Legal Framework Analysis
Under U.S. copyright law in the form of the Copyright Act of 1976, useful articles such as clothing and footwear are not afforded protection. Since the design of the Stan Smith sneaker itself—white leather upper, perforated stripes, green heel tab—is functional in nature, Adidas was not able to depend upon copyright protection. Rather, it employed trademark and trade dress protection to safeguard its brand identity.
The Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 1051 et seq.) formed the primary basis of Adidas’ claims. Under 15 U.S.C. § 1114, Adidas charged Skechers with trademark infringement, contending that the Onix sneaker resembled the Stan Smith too much, causing confusion among consumers and damaging Adidas’ reputation. Adidas further alleged trade dress protection (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)) in that the Stan Smith’s appearance was distinctive and distinctive enough to qualify as protectible under law. Adidas contended that Skechers borrowed these aspects and made it more difficult for customers to differentiate the brands.
Additionally, Adidas brought trademark dilution (15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)), alleging that Skechers’ Onix sneaker diluted the distinctiveness of the Stan Smith model. Unlike trademark infringement, dilution does not require evidence of consumer confusion—only that a celebrity mark’s distinctiveness is being undermined. Adidas also charged Skechers with unfair competition and passing off (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)), arguing that Skechers deliberately borrowed Adidas’ designs to profit from its fame and mislead buyers.
This case was influenced by some important legal precedents. In Adidas America, Inc. v. Payless Shoesource, Inc. (2008), Adidas prevailed with a $305 million judgment against Payless for the sale of shoes featuring analogous three-stripe designs, strengthening trademark and trade dress enforcement for footwear. In Louboutin v. Yves Saint Laurent (2012), the court held that unique fashion features—like Louboutin’s red-sole design—could be eligible for trademark protection, affirming the significance of trade dress in fashion law. Finally, Star Athletica, L.L.C. v. Varsity Brands, Inc. (2017) held that fashion designs may be copyrighted as long as they were separable from the garment’s functional element. Although this decision centered on cheerleading uniforms, it clarified that some elements of fashion design could qualify for copyright protection under certain circumstances.
Comparison Of Design
The Adidas and Skechers case was centered around the close similarities between Adidas’ Stan Smith sneaker and Skechers’ Onix sneaker, and also on Skechers’ adoption of a three-stripe design from Adidas’ trademark.
The Adidas Stan Smith sneaker is widely recognized by a clean white leather upper, three rows of perforated stripes, and a green heel tab, making it a familiar sight. Skechers’ Onix sneaker also incorporated most of these same elements—a white leather upper, a green heel tab, and the same pattern of perforations. Adidas alleged that Skechers had duplicated its design to deceive consumers and benefit from its reputation. Adidas further contended that Skechers’ application of three-stripe-like designs on other shoes infringed its trademark.
While Skechers’ design was not a duplicate, Adidas maintained that the general appearance, form, and main elements of the Onix sneaker rendered it a blatant imitation instead of merely a generic sneaker design. Adidas asserted this similarity would mislead consumers into believing Skechers is Adidas and diluting its brand identity.
For its part, Skechers refuted imitating Adidas, insisting that its design was merely an adaptation of overall sneaker fashion, not Adidas’ particular style. Skechers contended that white tennis shoes with colored accents at the heel had been around for decades and were not Adidas-specific. It further insisted that consumers could distinguish the two companies easily.
Final Legal Opinion
The court sided with Adidas, preventing Skechers from selling the Onix sneaker. This ruling established the significance of trademark and trade dress protections in fashion, demonstrating that even slight design similarities could give way to legal action.
Adidas won by claiming that the unique aspects of the Stan Smith shoe—its simple form, perforated lines, and green heel stripe—had become a trademark of the company, not just a run-of-the-mill shoe design. The court determined that Skechers’ Onix shoe was too close to the Stan Smith and would confuse consumers and violate Adidas’ rights to trade dress under the Lanham Act. Moreover, Skechers’ adoption of a three-stripe-like look on other collections was regarded as diluting the brand image of Adidas, and this made the position of Adidas even stronger.
Skechers claimed that its design only inspired from general sneaker designs, but the court held that the similarities tipped over into inspiration and gave an unfair edge to Skechers through utilizing Adidas’ popular brand image. The case was settled confidentially in 2019 and most likely involved Skechers halting production of the contested designs. This was a significant legal victory for Adidas in defending its brand.
This case emphasizes the boundaries of fashion copyright, where artistic pieces are protected but functional products such as shoes and garments are not. Governments can introduce reforms such as the EU’s unregistered design rights to enhance intellectual property (IP) protection. Strengthened enforcement of trade dress must be applied to fight brand dilution and counterfeiting. Quickened IP registration can help brands fight back on their designs in the fast-changing world of fashion. Since fashion is a global business, stronger global IP protection is needed to avoid confusing consumers globally with counterfeit products.
Author:
Sidratul Muntaha is an academically driven fourth-year BA LLB student at GGSIPU, dedicated to excellence in legal research and writing. Sidratul’s interests span corporate and financial regulation, criminal justice, and the intersection of fashion and law, where she brings a unique legal perspective to a creatively dynamic industry.
