Skechers Sues Adidas for Unfair Business Practices
I must say that I had a good laugh over this.
"Skechers' lawsuit claims that Adidas' alleged misbehavior has irreparably harmed its footing in the basketball marketplace."
http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/23463876/skecher…
Sure...it has nothing to do with creating shape ups...
I guess those new Matt Kuchar's aren't selling like they thought they would.
the Skechers Air SIngle Mom isn't exactly flying off the shelves.
Skechers, based in Manhattan Beach, California, is seeking recovery of Adidas' "ill-gotten profits, damages for lost sales and diminished brand value and increased advertising and marketing costs, and an injunction preventing adidas from making further illegal, undisclosed endorsement payments to amateur basketball players," according to the lawsuit.
Now, to be fair, Adidas is - by many accounts - about as shady as it gets when it comes to business practices and some of that has been discussed in numerous articles about the ongoing NCAA investigations into basketball, but let's not pretend that Skechers is doing this for both people that wear their shoes on the basketball court.
Sketchy argument, at best.
I’ll bet most people don’t know the correct pronunciation of Adidas, before Googling it.
Scheißkleidung.
Is it Ah-Dee-dahs? I’ve always been under the impression it was an acronym for:
All
Day
I
Dream
About
Sex
I know it’s lame and I’m showing my age
I believe the urban legend was "All Day I Dream About Sports". in the late 90s the band Korn released a song called A.D.I.D.A.S. which changed the meaning of "s" to "sex" in the song.
The S stood for sex going back to early 80s grade schools and prison yards.
If you’re thinking of the Korn song, then yes you’re correct.
a KORN song in 2018, you're wrong.
Its not an acroynm at all. Its short for Adolph "Adi" Dassler, the founder of Adidas.
I guess the focus group thought the naming them "Adolfs" wouldn't limit sales.
I'll bet most people don't care what the correct pronunciation of Adidas is and won't Google it.
I’ll bet you did.
But hey, if you want to be an asshole, by all means, continue.
he can just look through your posting history
I’ll bet he didn’t because nobody gives a fuck
Coming from one of the biggest a**holes on this board. Geesh dude you are soooo thinned skinned. Life must be really hard for you. But hey, if you want to be.... something something something. Get over yourself mate.
This comment is funny coming from you.
It is pronounced how Run DMC pronounces it, dammit.
I bet most people don’t know that you don’t capitalize adidas.
If under armour failed miserably in b-ball (it has), Skechers had and has no chance. Nobody thinks they’re an athletic brand, and the quality is terrible.
This is just attempted payback for losing in the TM lawsuit. The ESPN article correctly points out that 9th circuit reversed one of two preliminary injunctions against Skechers. But that reversal was on a secondary issue (proof of irreparable harm for the injunction remedy). The 9th circuit affirmed infringement rulings for both shoes.
And that case is at preliminary injunction stage. Adidas can (and likely will based on the roadmap in the 9th circuit opinion and very strong dissent) offer more proof as the case proceeds through discovery and trial.
If you read the district court opinion that the 9th circuit was ruling on, it was a woodshed ass kicking by adidas. Skechers did not appeal most of the issues it lost on.
Correct.
However, to me, Adidas is in grave peril with this lawsuit.
How on earth can they allow any discovery whatsoever from Sketchers?
Nike and UA have as much or more dirty laundry to hide, so they wouldn’t be that interested in uncovering the full extent of these payoffs. As Sketchers isn’t a player in the industry, they have a ton to gain by spilling all the secrets.
You lost me at 9th circus
Interesting. Sounds like Sketchers is going to use threat of discovery in new case - and all the terrible documents that must exist - to pressure adidas to settle the other suit.
I suppose the Bangladeshi 9 year olds just try a little harder when they make the shoes for Adidas...
What I'm saying is that in the world of mainstream market athletic shoes the quality is universally terrible..and the crap sells itself 99% via marketing. Their customer base isn't exactly the most discerning.
That's why the stakes are so high in the game of getting promising players to sign with one shoe company rather than another. And why Adidas literally engaged in a criminal conspiracy to do that. It's all about being the cool, hot shoe worn by cool, hot athletes.
Skechers may never have a chance in this game because so much of their marketing appeal was based on being a comfortable shoe for women rather than a cool shoe for 13 year old boys..but it has very little to do with 'quality'. We've seen Adidas quality at Michigan.
grapes today and they were very sour.
The Fox DOESNT eat the grapes, which is why he says they must be sour.
Dumbass.
:-P
Regardless of the likelihood they could be competitive in the basketball market. Adidas we pretty clearly running a competitive strategy that involved under the table payments to high school and college athletes to secure them when they went pro. That unethical and maybe illegal business practice would injure any other company trying to enter the market.
Not a lawyer so would need an mgo lawyer to tell me if I am crazy on this.
if you start digging into tax law as it relates to payments. There are reporting requirements - payments made to non-employee individuals require 1099 reporting to the IRS (unless it's under a certain amount - much less than reported payments.)
I'm no lawyer or CPA, fwiw.
Unfortunately for sketchers they're based on California, which has a great unfair competition law but it really only applies to consumers.
Skechers is awful and their shoes are absolutely hideous. No one will ever confuse them with an athletic shoe brand.
Walker shoes. When we competitively mall walk, skx walkers will have the advantage.
Look for a WR/RB/DE transfer. Maybe a Safety or second OL. Could be 3-5. Safety should stay!
What?
We will take them all, but how
means leaving us. We are still currently over the limit I believe.
We will have a few transfer out.
Please don’t let the RB be who I think it is - that would be disappointing
DE has to be Jones or Johnson. WR probably Crawford but could be McDoom. RB probably Walker unfortunately. S maybe Woods is frustrated he's not the starter? I don't see why any of the OL would transfer. The three RS juniors could grad transfer after the year and play right away, which I think is what likely happens if Runyan and Ulizio don't start. Even though we've heard nothing about Honigford, he has plenty of time to find snaps.
Significant playing time on the 2 deep. I really hope a safety doesn’t go, I like all of them.
I assumed that the comment "Safety should stay!" meant that it was someone who was going to see significant playing time this year. Which is why I guessed Woods, since people think hes neck and neck with Metellus and probably views himself as a starter.
has never shown anything.
I get that. But I think some of it has to do with the fact that he was once committed to OSU. It would be nice if he had a mutli TD game against them his senior year or something. Its unfortunate to see any player transfer though and I think Walker and Samuels would be a good RB group as upper classman.
Remember that Higdon had 11 att for 19 yds as a freshman and is now looking to have an all big 10 type season. Walker had 20 att for 68 yds and a TD last year. Plenty of time for him find his place in the stable.
LOL, I can't imagine Sketchers has a prayer in this lawsuit but after all the adidas nonsense I wish them the best of luck