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.
Danielle M. DeFilippis, Co-Chair of the firm’s Intellectual Property Law Practice Group, focuses her practice on intellectual property matters and litigation. She appears on behalf of individual and corporate clients in all phases of litigation from commencement through trial. Danielle regularly serves as lead counsel in cases before federal and state courts, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and alternative resolution forums.
Danielle has represented clients in a variety of industries, most notably, food and beverage, liquor, jewelry,...
You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.
Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com intended to be a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional. NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us.
Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.
The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 3 Grant Square #141 Hinsdale, IL 60521 Telephone (708) 357-3317 or toll free (877) 357-3317. If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.