A federal jury in Portland late Monday ordered Payless Shoesource Inc. to pay $304.6 million for willfully infringing on Adidas America Inc.'s three-stripe trademark logo.  
A nine-person jury in U.S. District Court in Portland unanimously awarded Adidas $30.6 million in actual damages, $137 million in punitive damages and $137 million in Payless profits, according to a transcript of the proceeding.  
And THIS is why trademark owners have to be such bastards. If they don't pursue every instance of infringement, they lose the right to go after the truly egregious cases like this one.  
The jury looked at 268 shoes put out by Payless and determined that for 267 of them, Payless was improperly copying the Adidas logo.
hahah those 4 striped adiddas
universole: whered you get em??
Maybe they should get a better logo...
FoolProof: ...than a couple of fzcking stripes.  
O = my logo. Anyone using something circular to sell their product is on my list.
PAgent: It's an excellent trademark. The fact that payless wanted to enhance the sales of their own crappy shoes by hoping to confuse the buyer with it is pretty much proof of the strength of the mark.  
Two golden arches is a pretty lame mark for a restaurant. But now it's famous, and trust me when I tell you Mickey D's attorneys will feast on your entrails if you infringe it.  
Go ahead and trademark O. After several decades of advertising and building customer goodwill, it might even become a stronger mark than three stupid stripes.
crataegus: I think Overstock and Oprah may have some issues with that...
PAgent: Depends on the goods being sold. However, in the case of Oprah, she could always sue on general principle.
aktaeon: I see what you're saying. But.  
Four stripes? Is there no prior art? Has nothing in the history of humans had four stripes?  
What if it were striped all the way around?
fabulon7: The Payless four stripes are visually nearly identical to the Adidas three stripes. There is just one extra stripe.  
If Payless had have made shoes with four stripes that were a different angle, width, shape, orientation, or something else, maybe they would have won. But they didn't. They pretty clearly just took Adidas' trademark and wilfully ripped it off.
aktaeon: Yes. But, it's a trademark, not a patent or a copyright. Trademarks can be renewed indefinitely.  
Theoretically the copyrights or patents on all works created today, no matter how amazing, will expire (although it's likely that a cure for cancer will enter the public domain before Mickey "Disney means eating shit" Mouse).  
Adidas made a design, which should be a copyrighted work, right? If not, why not just make everything you do, that has a shape or image , a trademark?  
My thought is that it looks like Payless made a derivative work. Still an infringement. But, if it were copyrighted, someone, someday, would be able to make shoes or clothes with stripes.  
This design is somehow more wonderful and worthy of protection than the Mona Lisa?
FoolProof: sue the grannys  
pneum0nic: /me high fives couchy
PAgent: Well, its good to know you don't have an axe to grind or anything, couchy.  
Unfortunately, I don't have the luxury of living in a Black and White world like you do. Specifically, I've seen plenty of examples of loathsome little companies knocking off their higher-quality competitors, trying to siphon off sales, extortion with bogus patents, and other crappy and illegal tactics.  
In some countries, a powerful company would just get hired goons to end such practices. We, on the other hand, utilize hired attorneys and the legal system. It's debatable which is more painful.  
But by all means, if it helps you to make sense of the world to believe that Corporate ALWAYS equals Evil, knock yourself out.
FoolProof: Those shoes are friggin ugly.  
FoolProof: I was confused. Badly.  
Can I have my check now?