Thursday, February 12, 2015 Volume 126 | Number 090 TheDailyRecord.com Under Armour lawsuit the latest in campaign to ‘protect this house’ Lawsuit against Skecher’s the latest of claims against rivals and others

By Anna Isaacs [email protected]

Under Armour Inc.’s lawsuit against Skech- ers U.S.A. Inc. for allegedly copying its “Protect This House. I Will.” ad campaign is the latest in a series of legal skirmishes between the Balti- more-based apparel and shoe company and its rivals and other businesses. Under Armour filed a complaint Tuesday in the U.S. District Court of Maryland that ac- Provided photos cuses California-based Skechers of “slavishly” Under Armour argues that ads for Skechers and UA (shown above) are too similar, with the same look and feel. copying the look and feel of its ad campaign – came too close to the “Protect This House” Under Armour itself has been the target with Skechers’ own commercial for athletic tagline with its own “Protect Your Body” catch- of litigation. Nike sued Under Armour for al- shoes. Both commercials, the suit says, fea- phrase. The following July, Under Armour legedly copying its moisture-wicking Dri-Fit ture fast-paced sequences of athlete close-ups entered a notice of voluntary dismissal. The clothing line, a case that was dismissed in in “cavernous” warehouses and gyms, pursuing president of Energy Armor said at the time 2006. And in February 2014, Adidas sued Under the same workout tasks – pegboard climbing, Armour for infringing a patent on athletic per- whipping heavy ropes, boxing and jumping formance-tracking technology. That case re- hurdles. mains open, and a jury trial is scheduled for Under Armour also points to the soundtrack: June 2016. an aggressive upbeat tempo, loud bass line, Jim Astrachan, an intellectual property law- and heavy percussion sounds that underscore yer with Astrachan Gunst Thomas who also “the athletes’ determination, effort, and physi- teaches trademark law, said Under Armour cal feats.” Chord progression, melody, tempo doesn’t seem “particularly enamored” with its and rhythm are all similar in Skechers’ com- I don’t think Under own case – or else the company would have mercial, the suit says. Armour is either ill- demanded a preliminary injunction – more im- Under Armour launched its “Protect This mediate than a permanent one. House” campaign in early 2010; the Skechers advised or alone in its “But they feel as if there is enough to offend commercial in question began airing last sum- pursuit of protecting and them,” he added. “They feel like the idea has mer, according to the lawsuit. been copied. But in copyright law, ideas are A Skechers spokesperson declined to com- enforcing its intellectual like air. They’re free.” ment, saying the company does not comment As in the other infringement cases Under on pending litigation. “property rights. Armour has pursued, this one probably won’t Under Armour paints an unflattering picture Jonathan Wachs make it to trial, Astrachan said. But there’s a of Skechers as a rip-off artist in the complaint, bigger-picture strategy at play, he said. Principal at Baltimore-based Offit Kurman citing as example Skechers’ “Bobs” shoe that “I think that Under Armour’s throwing its appeared to take after the popular “Toms” elbows around under the basket,” he said, and brand, both in design and with the charity el- trying to create some space for its brand. “It ement of donating footwear to the needy for that no money was involved in the settlement doesn’t like it, and it’s sending a message: don’t every pair sold. agreement. get too close to us. We’re going to sue you if The suit also cites a piece written by Mela- In April 2012, Under Armour sued Califor- you do.” nie Wells for Forbes in 2001, which says, “De- nia-based Body Armor Nutrition LLC, a sports Jonathan Wachs, a principal at Balti- signers at the company quickly ‘approximate’ beverage company, accusing them of trade- more-based Offit Kurman, said the claim is styles of sneakers, sandals and loafers soon mark infringement on its name, logo and tag- part of a “fairly consistent campaign by Under after they hit the street in New York, London or line. That case was settled in December 2013, Armour to protect its marks and intellectual Amsterdam. They roll out hundreds of designs with the companies agreeing to dismiss all property assets to the maximum extent per- a year, spotting a fad and getting their version claims and counterclaims with prejudice. mitted by law.” into stores in three months, beating rivals by a In February 2013, Under Armour accused But that protectiveness is common theme in month or more.” Nike of using the words “I will” to sell its prod- the world of sports apparel and athletic shoes, Under Armour has a history of going after ucts, a phrase that Under Armour has trade- said Scott Johnson, principal and chair of law competitors and other companies for alleged marked. The companies settled a year later. firm Ober Kaler’s intellectual property group. trademark infringement. In May 2009, Under And last month, Under Armour sued Flori- “They’re very fiercely protective of their Armour sued Denver-based Navajo Manufac- da-based fishing apparel company Salt Armour relatively… small differences that make huge turing Co. Inc., accusing the company of sell- Inc. for trademark infringement, pointing to differences in their market acceptance and ing “knock-off” sunglasses with an interlocking the use of the names “Salt Armour” and “De- their trademark and trade dress and design “U” and “A” logo they said was similar to their fense Armour.” patent-type assets,” own. The companies settled in October. In both the Energy Armor and Body Armor Johnson said. “I don’t think Under Armour In November 2011, Under Armour filed cases, the executives of the smaller companies is either ill-advised or alone in its pursuit of suit against Energy Armor Inc., claiming the said they felt they were the David to Under Ar- protecting and enforcing its intellectual prop- Jacksonville, Fla. company – which sells sili- mour’s Goliath. erty rights.” cone bracelets with “negative ion” technology