• Home
  • 1st Annual Symposium
  • About
  • Available Positions
  • Issues
    • Vol. 4 Issue 2
    • Vol. 4 Issue 1
    • Vol. 3 Issue 3
    • Vol. 3, Issue 2
    • Vol. 3, Issue 1
    • Vol. 2, Issue 3
    • Vol. 2, Issue 2
    • Vol. 2, Issue 1
    • Vol. 1, Issue 1
  • Staff
    • 2009-2010 Staff
    • 2010-2011 Staff
    • 2011-2012 Staff
    • 2012-2013 Staff
  • Submissions
  • Subscribe
Featured Article

A featured article from the current issue of the Intellectual Property Brief.

Daily Blog

A daily blog of IP-related news and issues

Articles

All of the Intellectual Property Brief’s published articles. All articles are hand-selected from outside submissions and from our very own IPB staff members.

Issues

PDF versions of each of the Intellectual Property Brief’s issues.

Short Circuit

Case-by-case summaries of intellectual property related opinions from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Home » Daily Blog, Featured, Patents

Battle of the Knits

Submitted by Melissa Grosett on October 17, 2012 – 12:01 AM6098No Commenthttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipbrief.net%2F2012%2F10%2F17%2Fbattle-of-the-knits%2FBattle+of+the+Knits2012-10-17+04%3A01%3A41Melissa+Grosetthttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipbrief.net%2F%3Fp%3D6098

When Nike announced its new Nike Flyknit technology in February, it was met with substantial approval ratings among consumers. The new minimalistic features of the shoe seem to follow a trend that several industries have been adopting recently. With this new Flyknit technology, Nike announced that it was able to make a shoe 19% lighter than its 2011 World Championship winning Nike Zoom Streak 3, which is exciting news for athletes. To manufacture a shoe that “features only the essentials,” Nike switched from sewing different materials together to “[engineering] a system using a specialized yarn knit together into a one-piece, sock-like upper, which covers the toes and top of the foot.” Speculations of this new manufacturing system being able to reduce waste by up to two-thirds and cut labor costs make it more attractive than ever since it would mean being greener and more sustainable. But perhaps, this system is too attractive…

On July 25, about five months after Nike’s Flyknit debut, Adidas, Nike’s largest competitor, announced its new Primeknit shoe; and it wasn’t just the name that bore a striking resemblance to the earlier Nike product. This shoe too, boasted new innovations in the engineering process leading to the creation of a knitted upper for the sneaker in just one piece of material. James Carnes, the Head of Design for Sport Performance at Adidas, responded to allegations of copying saying, “it would have been impossible to copy this process in a matter of months. We have four years of documentation in the form of prototypes, tech drawings, samples, etc.” According to Adidas, the idea for Primeknit was sparked years ago when two members of their design team saw a glove at the Techtextil fair in Germany. According to Nike’s announcement, the Flyknit was four years in the making and was “born from the common runner feedback, craving a shoe with the qualities of a sock.” So, it looks like we’ve got ourselves a classic case of who thought of it first?

Well, Nike’s claiming they did, and the District Court in Nuremberg, Germany believes they have a sound argument. On September 24, 2012, Nike announced that the court “has granted our application for an interim injunction against Adidas for patent infringement . . . [a]s a result, Adidas has been ordered to stop the manufacture and distribution of the shoe in Germany.” Nike and Adidas are no strangers to patent litigation against each other, and it seems as though there is more to come as Nike also announced plans to seek a permanent injunction against Adidas. Right now it appears as though Nike has won the first battle, but will a court find that the use of knitted uppers is too broad of a category to restrict it to Nike alone? That remains to be seen.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare

About the Author:

Author: Melissa Grosett

Melissa is a 1L at American University Washington College of Law serving as a Junior Blogger for the Intellectual Property Brief. She graduated from SUNY Stony Brook University in May 2012 where she received a B.S. in Business Management and a B.A. in Psychology. In undergrad, she served as the Manager of her school's Division 1 football team and as the President of the National Association of Black Accountants. At WCL, she serves as her section's Black Law Students Association representative and is a member of the Business Law Society. Her interests include intellectual property law, corporate law, and sports law.

Melissa Grosett has written 6 posts for the IPB.

Leave a comment!

Click here to cancel reply »

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

This is a Gravatar-enabled weblog. To get your own globally-recognized-avatar, please register at Gravatar.

Copyright »

Appropriating Sid Vicious

Appropriating Sid Vicious

Mr. Brainwash’s works recently joined the increasing number of cases on appropriation art after photographer Dennis Morris sued the street artist for use of his 1977 picture of Sid Vicious.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare
More articles »

Patents »

Oxycontin and the Implications of Pay-For-Delay

Oxycontin and the Implications of Pay-For-Delay

The Food and Drug Administration’s recent decision, which reasoned that the drug posed public health and safety concerns, creates serious patent implications with regard to generic drugs.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare
More articles »

Trademark »

Supreme Sues Married to the Mob for $10 Million

Supreme Sues Married to the Mob for $10 Million

Supreme, one of the most coveted skate-inspired clothing brands, is suing women’s clothing brand Married to the Mob and its founder Leah McSweeney for trademark infringement to the tune of $10 million.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare
More articles »

Facebook

Accepting Submissions

The IP Brief is currently accepting submissions. We are looking for papers that address a legal topic relating to any area of intellectual property. Please submit completed papers and a cover page with the name and title of the article to ipbrief [at] wcl.american.edu. Any questions can also be sent to this e-mail address.

Blogroll

  • American University Washington College of Law
  • Carrollogos
  • Copyright Blog
  • GamePolitics
  • Intellectual Property Watch
  • PatentlyO
  • Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property
  • Spicy IP
  • The TTABlog®
  • ©ollectanea

Tags

Archives

  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • January 2010

Random Posts

Remitting the Remittal of Joel Tenenbaum's Remittitur Motion Stand up for your Rights: Family Settles Feud over Publicity Rights in Bob Marley. Creator of Iconic Guevara Image Leads Copyright Rebellion Even Zombies Have to Pay Royalties Beer Does Not a Party Make: Coronado Brewing Co. Blames the Lawyers Ludicrous Penalties for Ludacris? Sony BMG v. Tenenbaum Sony Takes Aim At... Practically Everyone Woman Accused of Violating Royal British Legion Poppy Trademark Virginia Tech Files Lawsuit against Alum for ‘Hokie’ Trademark Infringement Facebook & Timelines.com Prepare For Trial with Joint Status Report
(refresh random posts)

Latest Video Post

Relatively New Anti-Piracy PSA: Another Analogy Comparison of Piracy to Stealing Cars or an Effective Message?

Recent Posts

  • Supreme Sues Married to the Mob for $10 Million
  • Appropriating Sid Vicious
  • Chick-Fil-A’s ‘Eat Mor Chikin’ Trumps Kale-Promotion Slogan
  • Oxycontin and the Implications of Pay-For-Delay
  • Oh, That’s Different … Never mind: USPTO Withdraws Ruling that IPAD MINI is “Merely Descriptive”

Twitter

  • No public Twitter messages.
  • Copy / Paste
  • Site Search
  • Wikipedia
  • Google
  • Facts
  • Amazon
  • eBay
  • Outlook
  • Gmail
  • Y! Mail
  • Twitter
  • Search & Share
Powered by WordPress | Log in | Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS) | Arthemia Premium theme by Colorlabs Project
The American University Intellectual Property Brief is licensed by the staff of the American University Intellectual Property Brief under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License. IPBrief.net is hosted by Dan Rosenthal. For technical queries, contact dan@danrosenthal.org

Creative Commons License