Some Respondents Prohibited from “Treading” on Converse Trademarks by the ITC

July 1, 2016

Reading Time : 2 min

This investigation stemmed from a complaint filed by Converse on October 14, 2014, in which it alleged violation of Section 337 in the importation into the United States and sale of certain footwear products that infringe the ‘103 and ‘960 trademarks, as well as U.S. Trademark Registration No. 4,398,753 (the ‘753 trademark) (for the midsole of the shoe). Converse also alleged violation of Section 337 based upon unfair competition/false designation of origin, common law trademark infringement and unfair competition, and trademark dilution. While most of the named respondents were subsequently either found in default or terminated from the investigation based on good cause or settlement and/or consent order stipulation, certain respondents remained (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.; Skechers U.S.A.; Inc.; Highline United LLC d/b/a Ash Footwear USA and New Balance Athletic Shoe, Inc.). 

Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock, in his initial determination on November 17, 2015, found all three trademarks valid and infringed by certain accused products. In addition to finding that Converse satisfied both the economic and technical prongs of the domestic industry requirement with respect to all asserted trademarks, the ALJ found no dilution of the ‘753 trademark. However, in its June 23, 2016 notice, the ITC affirmed-in-part, reversed-in-part and vacated certain portions of the ALJ’s Initial Determination. Specifically, the ITC adopted the ALJ’s finding that Converse holds two valid trademarks on the outsole layout of the famous canvas sneaker (the ‘103 and ‘960 trademarks). But, the ITC struck down the ‘753 trademark as invalid based on lack of secondary meaning. It was that mark that Walmart, Skechers and New Balance were accused of infringing. 

The notice resulted in a mixed-bag victory for Converse. While Converse lost on the ‘753 trademark covering the midsole—a rubber “bumper” running around the front of the shoe, a toe cap above the bumper and stripes running around the sides—it was victorious in its assertion that two other trademarks covering the distinctive outsole with its diamond-shaped pattern are valid. As a result, companies beyond those involved in this dispute are now barred from importing shoes that violate Converse’s trademarks for its outsole design. Further, the order applies not only to any company that may currently be selling shoes with that sole pattern, but also to any future knockoff attempts. 

In the Matter of Certain Footwear Products, Inv. No. 337-TA-936 (ITC).

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

October 1, 2025

In a recent final written decision, the PTAB determined that a reference patent was not prior art, despite the petitioner’s post‑filing attempt to correct its petition. While the petitioner argued that it intended to rely on the patent application’s earlier date of publication, both the corrected petition and the expert declaration continued to reference the issued patent rather than the published application.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 30, 2025

The USPTO Director recently granted a petitioner’s request for rehearing of the decision discretionarily denying institution of inter partes review, ultimately vacating the original decision, and referring the petition to the board for an institution decision.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 25, 2025

In considering claims to a method of reducing cardiovascular events, the Federal Circuit held that the term a “clinically proven effective” amount did not render the claims patentable over the prior art. Specifically, the Federal Circuit held that the “clinically proven effective” amount, whether limiting or not, could not be used to distinguish the prior art because the claims also specified the exact amount of the drugs to be administered in the method. The Federal Circuit also rejected patentee’s evidence of unexpected results because that evidence was tied solely to the “clinically proven effective” limitation.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 24, 2025

The Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law on non-infringement, thereby setting aside a $106 million jury verdict, after holding that prosecution history estoppel barred the patentee from asserting infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 17, 2025

A magistrate judge in the District of Delaware issued a Report and Recommendation, that found the sole asserted claim was a “single means” claim and therefore invalid for lack of enablement. In reaching that conclusion, the magistrate judge rejected the patentee’s argument that the preamble of the claim disclosed a second element that satisfied the combination requirement of Section 112, paragraph 6 because the preamble simply recited a descriptor of the very apparatus that was the subject of the means-plus-function limitation in the body of the claim. The district court judge presiding over this case has scheduled a hearing to review the magistrate’s ruling.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 9, 2025

The Federal Circuit has affirmed the PTAB’s determination that a patent challenger did not show the challenged claims were unpatentable for obviousness. The Federal Circuit concluded that substantial evidence, which included expert testimony, showed there was no motivation to combine the references.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

In a recent order addressing four IPR proceedings, the PTAB exercised its inherent authority under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(a) to sua sponte authorize post-hearing discovery on a potentially dispositive privity issue. The order followed a Director review decision that vacated and remanded earlier IPRs involving the same parties, patent family, and privity issue. 

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied institution of an inter partes review petition in part because it determined that a patent reference was not prior art under the common ownership exception of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(c)(1).

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.