Athletic apparel giant, Under Armour (UA), which was ranked No. 4 on Forbes Most Valuable Sports Brands in 2015, has been a trademark pit bull in recent years by attacking a series of companies for using “Armor” in their names for athletic clothing for trademark infringement. Well, the big dog is at it again. But this time, the David-versus-Goliath battle involves a different type of athletic wear…athletic wear for canines? UA recently filed a lawsuit against S&O Innovations LLC alleging trademark infringement, cybersquatting, and deceptive trade practices related to S&O’s use of “Armour marks” on Puppy Armour’s athletic wear for canines. UA alleges that it suffered damages due to S&O’s unlawful use of a confusingly similar trademark, which will lead consumers to believe that S&O’s products are manufactured or affiliated with the UA brand. UA claims that the puppy clothier not only misappropriated its famous trademarks but even copied the font of UA’s trademarks. Ruh-roh!

In 2011, Silvio Schillen, owner of S&O, devised a solution to his own dog’s sensitivity to heat and cold- canine athletic wear. The clothing line includes short-sleeved t-shirts and tank tops for pups. Unfortunately, UA didn’t find the brand very fetching.

So what’s the big deal since Puppy Armour’s clothing line is made for dogs and UA is for humans? This doesn’t matter to UA since it believes that confusion is not only “pawsible” but probable, despite the fact that Puppy Armour caters to four-legged customers. Some would even argue that UA had to bare its teeth to show that it is properly policing and protecting its valuable brand. And that is what it did. First, UA cancelled S&O’s federal trademark registrations. But the canine company continued to sell its puppy attire despite UA’s attempts to stop the alleged infringement. So UA went on the attack and filed a lawsuit asserting that Puppy Armour flagrantly attempted to doggy-back on its reputation and dilute its multibillion-dollar brand.

S&O eventually rebranded the product line and now operates as Puppy Athletic Wear but that may not be the end of this dogfight. UA is seeking a permanent injunction against Puppy Armour, including destruction of all products and materials bearing the Puppy Armour marks, as well as the transfer of numerous domain names. But here’s the real bite. UA has requested punitive damages for unfair competition in the amount of $100,000, treble damages under Florida’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and litigation expenses. That sounds like more bite than bark.

While some may say UA is being too vicious, it is also understandable that UA would be dogged in protecting one of its most valuable assets- its brands and trademark. Regardless of where you stand, this is a lesson in selecting a brand that plays on the fame of a well-known brand. Beware of messing with the big dogs.

For more information on this topic, please visit our Trademark Protection service page, which is part of our Trademark Practice.

Klemchuk LLP is an Intellectual Property (IP), Technology, Internet, and Business law firm located in Dallas, TX.  The firm offers comprehensive legal services including litigation and enforcement of all forms of IP as well as registration and licensing of patents, trademarks, trade dress, and copyrights.  The firm also provides a wide range of technology, Internet, e-commerce, and business services including business planning, formation, and financing, mergers and acquisitions, business litigation, data privacy, and domain name dispute resolution.  Additional information about the trademark firm and its trademark attorneys may be found at www.klemchuk.com.

Klemchuk LLP hosts Culture Counts, a blog devoted to the discussion of law firm culture and corporate core values with frequent topics about positive work environment, conscious capitalism, entrepreneurial management, positive workplace culture, workplace productivity, and corporate core values.

Pin it for later: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/315252042650455938/