Please Take This Quick Survey Re This Shoe

Who do you think puts out the shoe shown here?

Do you think the shoe is put out by that company alone or in association with someone else? If so, who would that be?

Do you think that the company that puts out this shoe got permission for some other company? If so, who would that be?

Update: see post above.

10 responses to “Please Take This Quick Survey Re This Shoe”

  1. Anonymous says:

    I think Merrell made the shoe and had to get permission from both K-Swiss and adidas. Not.

  2. Brand Geek says:

    Merrell puts out the shoe, presumably by itself sans license, though it sure looks like a Keen brand shoe.

  3. SV says:

    I thought it looked like all the other Merrell shoes I’d seen, then I read the comment below and I think I was thinking of Keen.  It looks a little like those.

  4. SStrky says:

    Merrell is the company that puts out the shoe. They do not put the shoe out in association with anyone else.

    I do not think the the company that puts out the shoe got permission from any other company.

  5. Peter Groves says:

    That’s a Merrell shoe, I don’t believe it’s put out in association with anyone else and I don’t see anything on it that might require another company’s consent. It’s possible that there’s some patented technology somewhere in it, and what does that tag at the back say? It looks like “waterproof”, but it could be something like “GoreTex” I guess.

  6. R Pierce says:

    It’s a Merrell shoe. I don’t think Merrell put out the shoe in association with someone else or got permission from another company.

  7. Marty says:

    See post above with the actual complaint.

  8. grandpa says:

    The hypothetical survey is irrelevant. Adidas generally concedes that there is no point-of-sale confusion in these types of cases, so an image (stimulus) this close up is meaningless. They rely on initial-interest and post-sale confusion, which would call for a survey stimulus viewed from much further away (likely without “Merrell” perceivable). I’m not saying Adidas should or should not win this case. Just pointing out the reality of these types of cases. Various rulings in the Payless litigation discuss this issue.

  9. Marty says:

    From Payless: ” adidas
    has submitted credible evidence of actual harm resulting from the
    alleged initial-interest and post-sale confusion to create a genuine
    issue of material fact as to the likelihood of confusion. Payless
    directly benefits from initial interest confusion by receiving unearned
    consumer interest. Pham Decl., Ex. 1 ¶ ¶ 88, 90; cf. Dr. Seuss,
    109 F.3d at 1405 (Initial interest confusion allows the infringer to
    improperly benefit from the goodwill that has developed in the mark). In
    addition, consumers are likely to impute to Payless many of the
    positive traits associated with the adidas brand due to years of
    extensive advertising of the Three-Stripe Mark. Id. ¶ 96. Payless
    also receives sales from buyers aiming to acquire the prestige of the
    adidas brand at a cheaper price. This is credible evidence of harm
    flowing from consumer confusion. McCarthy § 23:7; Hermes Int’l v. Lederer de Paris Fifth Ave., Inc.,219 F.3d 104,
    108 (2d Cir.2000) (“[P]ost-sale confusion can occur when a manufacturer
    of knockoff goods offers consumers a cheap knockoff copy of the
    original manufacturer’s more expensive product, thus allowing a buyer to
    acquire the prestige of owning what appears to be the more expensive
    adidas has submitted evidence that Payless’ stripe designs negatively
    impact consumer perceptions of the adidas brand as a source of quality
    footwear. Joachimsthaler Decl., Ex. 1 ¶ 112. ”   http://openjurist.org/998/f2d/985/payless-shoesource-inc-v-reebok-international-limited

  10. guest says:

    What would the survey results look like w/o the MERRELL mark on the shoe?