Three Stripes and You’re Out? B.C. Court Issues an Interlocutory Injunction Against Adidas
Outdoor apparel company Arc'teryx Equipment successfully obtained an interlocutory injunction against Adidas Canada, restraining Adidas from using the name “TERREX” at one of its retail store locations in Kitsilano, Vancouver.
Arc'teryx claimed that, when Adidas opened its retail store in January 2023, just a few doors down from its longstanding Kitsilano storefront, “it wrongfully traded on the reputation and goodwill of the Arc'teryx brand and violated laws related to the protection of trademarks, passing off, and unfair competition.”
In addressing the British Columbia Supreme Court, Arc'teryx argued that it would suffer irreparable harm as a result of the confusing similarity of logos diverting casual customers from Arc'teryx to the Adidas store, if an interlocutory injunction was not granted.
While all other TERREX stores specify “Adidas” under the logo, only the Kitsilano location excludes the company name, Adidas, from its signage, and instead includes the company’s triangular logo with the three “Performance Bars” beside the word “TERREX.”
Arc'teryx claimed that the Performance Bars logo approximated the stylized “A” in its own branding, and caused confusion amongst customers who may read the signage as “A TERREX,” and that confusion would be exacerbated by the proximity of the two stores.
Arc'teryx owns a trademark that grants its retail and online store services exclusive use of the trademark ARC'TERYX in Canada, and submitted that once the distinctiveness of their trademark diminishes, it would be impossible to regain. The Court ran with much of Arc'teryx’s argument in rendering its decision.
As all other TERREX storefronts (and the Adidas website) specify “Adidas” under its Performance Bars logo, the Court limited the injunction to the Kitsilano storefront only. Justice Kent also put the parties on notice regarding the temporary nature of the interlocutory injunction, which hinges on actually proceeding to trial, stating “[i]t is not meant to be an excuse for the plaintiff to cease the pursuit of its lawsuit so that the interlocutory injunction might effectively become a permanent injunction.”
Authors: Kasia Donovan and Ayesha Khanna
Authors
Expertise
Insights
-
Intellectual Property Litigation
Rise of Trademark Phishing Scams
There has been a reported surge in trademark phishing scams. The Canadian Intellectual Property Office (“CIPO”) issued a statement warning of an email phishing scam targeting members of the public by… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
The Return of the Honda Element?
A few recent patent applications reveal that the Honda Element may be making its return to the automotive industry: The first patent application is a “camper for a vehicle”. The second… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
"Worldle" Faces a Wordle Hurdle
Kory McDonald, the creator of “Worldle”, a geography-themed game, is advocating on behalf of all games ending in “-le”. Worldle shows a series of Google Street view images from which players… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
Not a “Success Kid”
Steve King, the former Iowa Republican Congressman, has reportedly lost his appeal attempting to overturn a copyright verdict for using the “Success Kid” meme in his 2020 campaign. The “Success… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
All the Corollas of the Rainbow
Toyota has reportedly filed a patent application for a colour-changing paint that changes colour when exposed to specific temperatures and light sources. This technique involves painting the car… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
Alaska Airlines Not Soaring After Losing Appeal
Alaska Airlines (“Alaska”) recently lost an appeal over a trademark licensing agreement at the Court of Appeal in London, in a decision favoring Virgin Group. Alaska was ordered to pay approximately…