Nike Files Patent Infringement Injunction Against Adidas Primeknit
When word first hit that adidas would be launching its own knit style sneaker, the adidas Primeknit, there’s no doubt that the design was familiar, echoing to some extent the Nike Flyknit technology that was first rolled out in February of this year. Apparently the sneaker was a little too familiar for the Swoosh bigwigs, with Nike now filing an injunction against adidas in German courts for patent infringement. The filing so far has led to the ceasing of all manufacture and distribution of the sneakers in Germany, a move made to protect the integrity and innovation of the Nike developed Flyknit line. Click through for another look at adidas’ knit sneaker, as well as Nike’s official statement on the matter, and let us know if you think the move was justified.
via Nike INC:
We are pleased the District Court in Nuremberg has granted our application for an interim injunction against adidas for patent infringement by the “adizero primeknit” shoe released in July, 2012. As a result, adidas has been ordered to stop the manufacture and distribution of the shoe in Germany.
Nike has a strong heritage of innovation and leadership in footwear design and development. Our patents are the foundation of that leadership and we protect them vigorously. In this case, the injunction helps protect the innovative Nike Flyknit footwear technology Nike introduced in February, 2012.
We look forward to presenting our case for a permanent injunction to the court.
I don't think it's good for us as consumers that this happened, but it was far by easily justified
Adidas even went as far as putting out marketing pictures with the upper laid out in the exact same way that nike did and still does with their flyknit ads.
@phillishoes Where can i find these marketing pics? Please send a link.
@RyanRoslyn Thats a terrible equation btw. but shit like this has been happening for ages. Nike jacked a bunch of ideas and im sure others have also.
$ + Power = (9/10 times)what ever u want
@RyanRoslyn But if Nike truly put in the research and development money and adidas just reverse engineered the shoe, Nike deserves to profit from their investment. If products were not protected in this way, there would be no incentive for any company to develop new technology. As a consumer, I would rather pay a little extra for a new technology than not have new technology at all.
Can't find the more clear image anymore, but this is still the same. They open it up exactly like nike did with the hyperfeel, etc.
@BuddhaShark @RyanRoslyn i seem to recall nike copying reebok's idea on a collapsible shoe. they ended up making the free run which sells way more than reebok's realflex even though reebok came up with the idea. the problem is that nike's so big that when reebok tried to sue them nikke just paid them and kept on producing the free runs. it's not fair that a big company like nike will happily and knowingly copy another design but complain when some other brand tries to copy them.
@infrared @RyanRoslyn But Nike paid them. Reebok accepted the money. It's not Nike's fault that people buy their stuff over Reebok even if Reebok had the idea. Nike has earned their reputation as the best by being the best. If Reebok accepted the money over an injunction in that case, it was most likely because they thought Nike was offering them more money than they could have made with 100% of the flexible sole running shoe market.