So, it turns out that everyone’s favorite sneaker brand, Adidas, and everyone’s least favorite sneaker brand, Skechers, are currently embroiled in multiple legal battles.
As AdWeek is reporting, Skechers just filed suit against Adidas over the brand’s college bribery scheme. The lawsuit “alleges that just as [Skechers] passed Adidas in sneaker popularity… Adidas started making payments to college basketball players,” creating what they say was “an unfair advantage for Adidas, not only in the basketball shoe category, but the shoe category overall.”
“Skechers claims it has faced increased advertising and marketing costs, lost sales and profits, and a drop in brand value as a result… [and is] asking the court for ‘recovery of Adidas’ ill-gotten profits’ and an injunction preventing the shoe maker from paying amateur players.”
Three quick things: 1) Skechers doesn’t make good basketball shoes. 2) Skechers doesn’t sponsor any college basketball teams. 3) And LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL at Skechers passing Adidas in popularity.
Adidas, for the record, called the complaint “frivolous and nonsensical,” and said that it “should be summarily dismissed,” which seems both accurate and accurately patronizing.
Just a day after Skechers filed their lawsuit, 9th Circuit judge Jacqueline Nguyen upheld part of a 2016 injunction Adidas filed against the brand that barred them from selling a Stan Smith knockoff because it was a total Stan Smith knockoff. According to Reuters, Judge Nguyen “said the Stan Smith… has enjoyed ‘tremendous commercial success and market recognition,’ and Adidas might face irreparable harm if similar shoes flooded the market.”
And it wasn’t just a “blatantly copied” design that was used to boost Skechers sales, the judge also said “evidence suggested that Skechers intended to confuse consumers by… directing consumers who searched online for ‘adidas stan smith’ to [their] website.”
I guess you could call it a David and Goliath battle, but only if David was a lame, punchline of a brand that everyone wanted to lose.