Steve．Madden (Steve Madden) Is a major manufacturer and retailer of clothing, footwear, belt, Handbag and accessories company, Converse (Converse) Is primarily a shoe company. Converse sued Madden for infringement of its design patents, But Madden asked the court to dismiss some of Converse's claims.

recently, The U. S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied Madden's request. Case background Converse sued, Madden sold shoes with designs that allegedly violated design patents held by Madden. Madden filed a motion with the court, Asking the court to dismiss some of Converse's claims (First item) , On the grounds that the complaint failed to present a reasonable claim of infringement.

Kuang Wei Yu 2018 It was launched in London in 2000 "RunStar Hike" Sports shoes, concurrence 2019 Released in the United States in 2000. Converse has applied for and received a patent related to the sneaker design, Inclusive control D873547 Number and control D874106 U. S design patent.

2020 At the beginning of the year, Mardon started selling 2 A sneaker brand, namely "Madden Girl Winnona Flatform High Top Sneaker" (Hereafter called Winnona Sports shoes) and "Shark Sneaker" (Hereafter called Shark Sports shoes) .

Converse believes the sneakers are very similar to their designs, So in 2020 years 3 month, 4 Tsukiwa 5 lunar 3 Let Mardon know on a different occasion: Winnona and Shark The sneakers violated Converse's No D873547 Number and control D874106 Design patent, Mr Madden should stop such abuses. however, Madden refused and continued to sell the sneakers suspected of infringement.

2020 years 5 month, Converse sued, To Mardon 2 charge, charge Winnona and Shark The sneakers violate the No D874106 Design patent (First item) and Shark The sneakers violate the No D873547 Design patent (Second item) . Madden asked the court to dismiss the case Winnona The first charge related to the sneakers.

To this, Converse argues, Be unable to Winnona Athletic shoe soles are all designed for tread pattern D874106 The object of the design patent is to protect the tread pattern on the back of the sole to show that the former does not infringe the latter patent. Converse further responded, Madden did not submit any evidence that the two designs were significantly different.

The court compared pictures of evidence submitted by both sides, Found that the two designs were not different enough to dismiss Converse's claim. contrary, The average consumer may be confused or cheated, The product is considered to be a patented design. Patent illustration and Winnona Sneakers are almost identical in many ways, Including the pattern of the rear soles constituting the plaintiff's exterior design. The only obvious difference between the two designs is that the tread pattern extends to Winnona The entire sole of a sneaker, And control D874106 There is no tread pattern in the middle of the sole in the design patent.

Based on the above situation, The District court rejected Madden's claim that some of Converse's designs had been patent infringed (First item) motion.

(Compiled from www. mondaq. com)

Reprinted from China Intellectual Property Network   translation: Rason group　proofread: Wu Xian

disclaimer: This website reprint articles are from the Internet, Does not represent the views of this website or confirm the authenticity of its content. If the source is mislabeled or the copyright of the article is involved, Please contact this website, This website will be corrected in due course, delete, thank you.