HQ 0450660 - Suspected infringement of a Reebok trademark (Registration No. 1,196,293; Customs Recordation Issuance No. 87-247, April 1987) - United States International Trade Commision Rulings

United States International Trade Commision Rulings And Harmonized Tariff Schedule

faqs.org Rulings By Number Rulings By Category Tariff Numbers

faqs.org > Rulings and Tariffs Home > Rulings By Number > 1993 HQ Rulings > HQ 0450381 - HQ 0452915 > HQ 0450660

HQ 450660

January 23, 1991

TRA CO:R:IT:I 450660 TPT

CATEGORY: TRADEMARKS

District Director of Customs
P.O. Box 37260
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53237-0260

RE: Suspected infringement of a Reebok trademark (Registration No. 1,196,293; Customs Recordation Issuance No. 87-247, April 1987)

Dear Sir:

This is in response to your memorandum of November 29, 1990, forwarding the documents related to two district cases (case numbers 89-3701-00051 and 00053). This matter, involving the importation of athletic footwear suspected of infringing the above referenced trademark, was forwarded to Headquarters after several conversations between this office and a member of your staff.

FACTS:

District case 89-3701-00051 involves the importation of 6,852 pairs of athletic footwear (381 cartons of shoes, domestic value $211,774). District case 89-3701-00053 involves the importation of 339 cartons of mens shoes (domestic value $131,503). In letters dated September 5, 1989, and October 2, 1989, Customs notified the importer of the seizure of these shipments. In each letter Customs alleged that a violation of 19 U.S.C. 1526(a) occurred and seizure was effected pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1526(b). In these letters the importer was advised that it could wait to file a petition pending the outcome of criminal proceedings. In each case Customs stated that the merchandise bears a counterfeit trademark.

On August 7, 1990, Customs notified the importer that since criminal proceedings would not be initiated Customs would entertain administrative proceedings. Customs again issued a written notification of seizure on September 5, 1990, and outlined the importer's right to petition for relief. In response, the importer filed its petition, September 6, 1990, denying the allegation that it imported counterfeit merchandise.

2

After reviewing the importers petition, Customs stated in its November 15, 1990 letter that the petition requesting relief from forfeiture was denied.

ISSUE:

Whether the imported athletic footwear, bearing a word mark registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, infringes the design trademark referenced above.

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

Under the Trademark Laws a certificate of registration issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office shall be prima facie evidence of the validity of a registered mark. 15 U.S.C. 1057(b). Section 1526(e) of the Customs Laws (19 U.S.C. 1526(e)) prohibits the importation of articles bearing a counterfeit trademark. Counterfeit marks are spurious marks that are identical with or substantially indistinguishable from the registered trademark. 15 U.S.C. 1127; 19 C.F.R. 133.23a(a). The Trademark Laws deny entry to articles bearing trademarks which copy or simulate registered trademarks (15 U.S.C. 1124) recorded with Customs for import protection pursuant to Part 133 of the Customs Regulations (19 C.F.R. Part 133).

The test for trademark infringement is whether the use of the suspected mark is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive. See 15 U.S.C. 1114. Also, the test is to determine whether the suspected mark is a counterfeit mark which is identical or substantially indistinguishable from the registered mark.

The importer states that the mark which appears on the shoe, "Stacy Adams," has been registered since 1940 (Registration No. 380,669 renewed for second 20-year period on August 27, 1980). The importer asserts that the soles of the imported merchandise differ entirely from the Reebok shoe and that the boxes of the imported merchandise do not resemble the boxes of the Reebok shoe.

The importer states that Reebok has had mixed results in attempting to protect its so-called "stripe check" design mark referenced above. The importer relies on Reebok v. Alon, 5 U.S.P.Q.2d 1830 (C.D. Cal. 1987). In Alon Reebok attempted to enjoin another manufacturer from selling shoes having a similar "stripe check" design. The importer relies on the fact that the court denied Reebok's request for injunctive relief and quotes the court's language that the stripe check design had acquired "no secondary meaning" and that the design is not "unique." Arguing that other courts have also questioned attempts to protect stripe patterns, the importer cites Brooks Shoe 3

Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Suave Shoe Corporation, 716 F.2d 854 (11th Cir. 1983).

Additionally, the importer relies upon language of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) as support for the view that registered marks such as the one in question should be protected narrowly. In In re The Lucky Company, 209 U.S.P.Q. 422 (TTAB 1980), the board noted the common practice of athletic shoe manufacturers of placing stripes and bar designs on the sides of shoes as a way of indicating the source of such merchandise. The board stated that the consumer market was saturated with shoes bearing similar bars and designs, thereby resulting in weak marks entitled to only narrow and limited protection. Id. at 423.

The importer contends that the TTAB has questioned these types of designs as functioning as trademarks at all. Puma- Sportschuhfabriken Rudolf Dassler KG v. Roller Derby Skate Corporation, 206 U.S.P.Q. 255, 258 (TTAB 1980). The importer further avers that in a case involving a weak trademark, as it believes is the case here based upon Dassler KG and In re The Lucky Company, the mark must acquire secondary meaning.

The importer argues that the design marks on athletic footwear are not distinctive enough to warrant protection based upon the cases it cites. The importer contends that it is unfair and contrary to law to permit Customs to resolve this case by forfeiture. Finally, the importer argues that it is unfair for Customs to resolve this case where a court has denied the trademark owner an injunction based upon a finding of no likelihood of confusion.

Initially, we point out that Reebok has a registered design trademark for athletic shoes and Reebok has recorded its trademark with Customs for protection against imported merchandise infringing the trademark. The registered trademark is a stripe design on the side of the shoes. As shown on the certificate, one stripe begins high on the side, below the ankle, and slants down slightly in the direction of the toe.

A center shoe stripe begins near the base of the shoe where stitching of the heel portion of the shoe meets the rubber banding around the base of the shoe. The center stripe is narrow at the bottom and rises along the side appearing to overlap the first stripe. This center stripe widens, one side curving slightly and toward the toe end of the laces (bottom side of the stripe) while the other side rises initially at the same angle then flairs sharply wider over the first stripe and toward the opening of the shoe (top side of the stripe). The width of this center stripe is almost as wide as the eyelet stays on the top of the shoe.

4

Two other narrow, parallel stripes run from the bottom of the center stripe. These two narrow, parallel stripes slant at the same angle as the first stripe then curve downward into the foxing like band around the bottom of the shoe. The narrow stripe closest to the toe end of the shoe meets the foxing like band at a point below the end of the eyelet stays.

The imported shoes bear stripe designs that very closely resemble the registered and recorded design. On the imported shoes, the center stripe flairs out and widens at a point slightly higher than on the protected article. Also, the two narrow stripes on the imported shoe extend toward the toe of the shoe like the protected shoe, but ends where the reinforced leather like toe material begins on the side of the shoe. Thus, the two narrow stripes do not extend as far as the stripes on the Reebok.

Looking at the stripe design of the imported shoe, the overall design on this shoe so resembles the registered and recorded design as to cause a likelihood of confusion. Therefore, the imported shoes are subject to seizure under title 19, U.S.C., 1595a(c) for a violation of title 15, U.S.C., 1124 (no article which copies or simulates a registered trademark shall be admitted to entry). We note that the TTAB has, in the cases cited above, commented on the weakness of such marks. However, notwithstanding these comments by the TTAB, the TTAB also stated that "we cannot overlook the fact that . . . a registration" exists and that "such registration . . . is entitled to various presumptions . . . and is,therefore, entitled to a measure of protection . . .." Dassler KG at 258; see also In re The Lucky Company at 422 (these designs and bars are weak marks entitled to very narrow and limited scope of protection).

In addition to the design on the imported shoe, it bears the words "Stacy-Adams" on the center stripe. Notwithstanding that "Stacy-Adams" is a registered mark, the existence of this mark on the shoes in combination with another registered trademark (Reebok stripe design), rather than eliminating any confusion, may create consumer confusion. See generally Banff, Ltd. v. Federated Department Stores, Inc., 841 F.2d 486 (2d Cir. 1988).

Although the TTAB explicitly states its reservations concerning design trademarks on athletic footwear, the board still recognizes that protection of such marks is warranted. Since the TTAB has not invalidated Reebok's design trademark, Customs will continue to protect it against infringement based upon the statutory provisions cited herein.

5

HOLDING:

The imported merchandise bearing the stripe design with the words "Stacy-Adams" is determined to cause a likelihood of confusion and, therefore, subject to seizure under 19 U.S.C. 1595a(c) for a violation of 15 U.S.C. 1124. The importer may petition for relief in accordance with 19 C.F.R. Part 171.

Sincerely,

John F. Atwood, Acting Chief

Previous Ruling Next Ruling