logo
logo
logo
MENU
Danielle M. DeFilippis
Member
Danielle M. DeFilippis
Visit Profile

Who will win the race? Puma battles Brooks over brand name and design

Who will win the race? Puma battles Brooks over brand name and design

In July of this year, Puma SE and Puma North America Inc. (“Puma”), known for their athletic wear and footwear, sued rival Brooks Sports, Inc. (“Brooks”), for trademark infringement, patent infringement, and unfair competition. Puma seeks in this lawsuit, among other relief, to enjoin Brooks from using Puma’s NITRO trademark. Puma asserts it has been using the mark NITRO on footwear since at least March 2021, and its NITRO line of running shoes are currently Puma’s top selling running shoes in the U.S. According to the complaint, despite being on notice of Puma’s rights to the NITRO mark, Brooks moved ahead with an infringing advertising campaign #RunOnNitro.” Puma also alleges that Brooks introduced a shoe that infringes its design patent and is being sold with the NITRO mark.

Brooks fired back last month, asserting counterclaims against Puma declaring that Puma’s trademark rights are invalid. According to its counterclaim, Brooks is the leading adult running shoe brand in the United States due in large part to its technological innovations, one of which is “nitrogen-infusion.” Brooks uses SCF foaming to introduce nitrogen gas into the midsoles of its running shoes, creating cushioning to improve performance. Brooks asserts that its use of “nitro” is descriptive, that it was using the term “nitro” before Puma launched its shoe collection, and that Puma has no right to prevent Brooks from using the term “nitro” to describe its own nitro-infusing technology. Brooks further argues that Puma’s design patent has nothing to do with Puma’s Nitro branded shoes. Brooks’ counterclaim seeks a declaration that Puma has no protectible trademark rights in “nitro” for footwear, a declaration of non-infringement of “nitro,” a declaration of non-infringement of Puma’s patent, and a declaration of invalidity of the patent. 

As we have noted in the past, the strongest marks are fanciful, arbitrary, or suggestive. The strength of a trademark is a critical component to an infringement claim and will surely play a role in this litigation. It remains to be seen who will cross the finish line first in this battle.

If you are interested in this topic, or any other aspects of publicity, copyright, or trademark matters, please contact me at dmdefilippis@norris-law.com.

Share
Related Posts
Ninth Circuit Broadens Means to Serve Foreign Defendants in Lanham Act Cases
Lawsuit claims TEXAS PETE is deceptive
Amazon and GE Team Up Against Counterfeiters
Danielle M. DeFilippis
Member
Danielle M. DeFilippis
Visit Profile
Related Posts
Ninth Circuit Broadens Means to Serve Foreign Defendants in Lanham Act Cases
Lawsuit claims TEXAS PETE is deceptive
Amazon and GE Team Up Against Counterfeiters
Share
Join our growing team
We are looking for quality attorneys to help us do more for our clients. At Norris McLaughlin, each attorney has the same opportunity to succeed whether you’re at the beginning of a career or pinnacle of the profession.
Subscribe to our content
Receive timely legal information
delivered to your inbox
Subscribe to our content
Receive timely legal information
delivered to your inbox
© 2022, Norris McLaughlin, P.A., All Rights Reserved. Attorney Advertising.
Meritas

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume you consent to our cookie policy. Learn more