Skechers has seen wild success by copying the designs and technologies of other sneaker brands. Now, the brand is facing yet another lawsuit from adidas.
This next lawsuit is centered around the adidas Springblade, a shoe that adidas introduced in 2013. Skechers more than copied the original design, it also copied subsequent variations on the silhouette as adidas improved it. The Springblade Ignite, which launched in 2015, was then copied by Skechers with the Mega Blade 3.0.
adidas PR released this statement regarding the matter:
We will not stand by and allow others to blatantly copy our products and infringe on our valuable intellectual property. These shameless imitations tarnish the reputation of our brand and our people who work tirelessly to research and develop technical innovations and designs that help athletes make a difference.
We are the leader in footwear innovation, design and engineering, creating high performance shoes for athletes. We are a company of creators and makers who lead the industry to new standards, continually bringing the best in high-quality products to consumers.
This pattern of unlawful behavior and freeloading in the industry is outrageous and must end. We will take every legal measure possible to protect and defend our innovations.
We’ve included the official complaint for patent infringement documents below that fully highlight the charges adidas is carrying against Skechers. The documents aren’t a difficult read and expose one of the specific technologies adidas is filing charges over: the integrally joined leaf springs at the rear-most spring blade unit.
This is far from the first time that Skechers is being sued; early this year Nike carried charges against the brand for trademark infringement and cited a Complex article that pointed out “rip-off” characteristics on the Skechers product.
So, what do you think about this latest adidas lawsuit? Think the Three Stripes will win?
[pdf-embedder url=”http://weartesters.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Skechers-Complaint_07_11_16.pdf”]
Yeah, sure looks they took ” inspiration ” from the spring blades but let’s be honest, that tech was a miss with the consumers
I almost rolled/broke my ankle more times than I can count in the springblade. The fact is, the Skechers products are copies of /// products. Would you be pissed? I think the tech was a miss too, especially because running backwards in the original springblade was a no-go. While I concede that these brands sue for anything and everything — just look at adidas suing APL over “vertical stripes on a shoe” — this does seem like stealing imo.
For shame Skechers, for shame.
Does this feel like /// airing out its dirty laundry or?
Looks like an almost exact copy,
Even if the design wasn’t that succesfull, others must respect the original creators hardwork.
I agree that brands definitely tend to sue for everything. They literally have legal teams filing patents around the clock for things that they don’t even have an interest in really producing just as much as they have legal teams just looking for opportunities to get at other brands. However, Skechers is just getting a bit out of hand with some of this. These blade designs look almost identical and that “Boost” imitation that they have (I think it’s called “Burst”) is utterly ridiculous. Time to innovate or pay up for this stuff. It’s just waaayyyyy too obvious.
How has skechers gotten away with this crap for so long?! It seems like all they do is rip off designs from major companies and profit from it and they have just been allowed to get away with it all these years! I just cant fathom how skechers has not been put into the ground yet.
I have noticed this for a long time. Sketchers has completely copied many brands popular tech and tried to pass them off as their own design. I bet they don’t even have their own design team because all they do is copy design after design. I am surprised that it has taken this long for someone to really go after Sketchers and put them in their place. The most notable designs that I have seen them take is Adidas Boost, Springblade, and Nike Flyknit (Possibly) and Air. Also, one that I have seen that might be less noticeable is that on their boots, like Ugg, who write Ugg Australia, Sketchers writes Sketchers Australia. It is unbelievable how they are taking the hard work and designs of others and trying to make it look like it is their own. Crazy!
I think i have seen sketchers “boost” in one of the shops. Not to mention all sorts of nike
All brands take inspiration from competitors. Adidas Primeknit was a direct answer to Nike’s Flyknit. Reebok ripped of Sketchers Shape Ups (I think they were called EasyTone or something like that). Sometimes they even outright steal ideas (especially when that tech is selling). Nike totally ripped off the Reebok Pump back in the day. Whats unusual is a company to be so brazen and have a f%ck it attitude. They just keep stealing idea after idea (only making it worse and cheap so I guess its OK). Instead of a research and development division they seemingly just have 2 people looking at rival brands, slapping an S on the side, and saying “viola” a totally new and original product. Normally you see that sort of thing from no name companies for shoes at Payless or KMart. Companies that can be “shut down” or go “bankrupt” only to reappear under a new name. Sketchers is a name brand. Their “Go Walk” shoes were/are HUGELY successful. I guess the answer is in the name. Sketchers is sketchy as f%ck. Not gonna get my money.
Knitting is not a technology, it’s a technique. The rest you’re right about, but you can’t steal a technique as old as knitting, as much as brands love to claim it’s technology, and a breakthrough, and totally different than regular knitting(which it’s not).
adidas a3 vs nike shox though.
I really want to know who won that lawsuit haha
Reebok would’ve won, because both ripped off ERS as a mechanical-cushioning element.
Adidas owns Reebok
They didn’t then.
It’s no different than the practice of Zara/H&M etc making more affordable versions of designer clothes. People get sucked into it. Those stores easily get away with doing such because it doesn’t take much to get past a trademarked graphic…if it even is trademarked. I’m pretty sure you can’t patent aesthetic cuts of clothing either.
But even then, majority of Skechers are mad ugly imo.
I have very little respect to grown men who wear Skechers, I know they are a huge commercial globally but dang…even Peak or LiLing had more innovation in their shoes.
Honestly I think footwear is a corner of industry that shouldn’t be protected too strongly by “anti-infringement”. While this design specifically kind of bucks the trend, can you imagine is shoes weren’t allowed to look the same? What if cars weren’t allowed to look the same, or televisions, or refrigerators, or anything else that has been finely tuned for tens or hundreds of years into the usable, efficient, and common shapes we have today.
Hot damn yo, and I thought the Springblade looked trash.
The only time I’d ever rock these is in a sz 50 for the winter so I’d have a solid toboggan.
Adidas and Nike should also go after Skechers for their Skechers Burst shoe with FastKnit… lol