Puma Settles Artist’s Trademark Claims Regarding Alleged “Roar” Logo Scam
- Law firms
- Related documents
- Christophe Roberts claims Puma stole a “teeth” business card
- Puma reportedly used the design on clothing, including shirts, jackets
- The judge previously denied Roberts a preliminary injunction
The names of companies and law firms shown above are generated automatically based on the text of the article. We are improving this functionality as we continue to test and develop in beta. We appreciate comments, which you can provide using the comments tab on the right of the page.
(Reuters) – Brooklyn-based artist Christophe Roberts has settled his claims that German sportswear maker Puma stole his “Roar” business card and used the design – a stylized tooth – on his clothes , according to a file filed Tuesday in the Manhattan Federal File. search.
the joint filing said the parties had agreed to dismiss all of Roberts ‘trademark infringement claims, as well as Puma’s counterclaims to invalidate the federal registration of Roberts’ trademark. Details of the settlement were not immediately available.
Roberts and his lawyers Siddartha Rao and Molly Mauck of Romano Law did not immediately respond to a request for comment, neither Puma North America Inc nor his lawyer Johanna Wilbert of Quarles & Brady.
Roberts is an award-winning artist whose works have appeared in several art exhibitions, is well known among “sneakerheads” and has collaborated with brands including Nike, according to his. March complaint. He claimed that Puma ripped off his iconic “Roar” design and used it on clothing, including jackets and t-shirts, after a member of the company’s basketball division saw his work. in an art installation and hired several people to work with him there.
U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff rejected Roberts’ request for a preliminary injunction to prevent Puma from using the designs in May.
Rakoff found that Roberts had not “established sufficiently serious issues on the merits to make them a cause for fair litigation, let alone a likelihood of success.” He noted that Puma’s “tooth” designs come in “many different shapes and sizes” that are not similar to Roberts’ design as a whole, and that there was no evidence of actual confusion. or in bad faith, among other things.
Puma responded to allegations in June and asked the court to invalidate Roberts’ federal mark for non-use, abandonment and fraud. Puma said Roberts lied about his trademark application regarding use of the trademark in commerce, which Roberts denied later in the month.
The case is Roberts v. Puma North America Inc, US District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 1: 21-cv-02559
For Roberts: Siddartha Rao, Nicole Haff and Molly Mauck from Romano Law
For Puma: Johanna Wilbert, James Aquilina, Lauren Bolcar and Joseph Kohn from Quarles & Brady