LSAClassOf2000

May 11th, 2018 at 6:38 PM ^

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.

bluepdx

May 11th, 2018 at 8:03 PM ^

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.

jbrandimore

May 11th, 2018 at 8:50 PM ^

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.

BlueMk1690

May 12th, 2018 at 10:59 AM ^

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.

ndscott50

May 11th, 2018 at 9:01 PM ^

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.

PM

May 12th, 2018 at 10:10 AM ^

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.

 

ish

May 11th, 2018 at 9:03 PM ^

Unfortunately for sketchers they're based on California, which has a great unfair competition law but it really only applies to consumers.

4th phase

May 12th, 2018 at 3:18 PM ^

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.

4th phase

May 12th, 2018 at 7:44 PM ^

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.