Tennis Troubles

Thanks to Jim Davies for tipping the IPKat off most a contest case amongst a merchandise score flavour. Under the Code of Conduct of the Grand Slam Committee (the organising bodies of the diverse lawn tennis ‘grand slams’), players are saltation past times a wearing apparel code, which includes the next clause:

"No identification shall endure permitted on a player's clothing, products or equipment on courtroom during a check or at whatever press conference or tournament ceremony, except every bit follows (the GSC reserves the correct to translate the next rules so every bit to give trial to the intent too purposes of these Grand Slam Rules)"

However, ‘manufactuerers’ touchstone logos’ of a certainly size are permitted.

Tim Henman (left) inwards around of the offending Adidas gear

Following the Athens Olympics, a release of sportswear manufacturers wrote to the GSC, claiming that Adidas’ occupation of its three-stripes logo on its wearable infringed the wearing apparel code. After around to-ing too fro-ing, Adidas brought proceedings against the GSC, arguing that the wearing apparel code was inwards breach of the Art.81 too 82 contest rules. The GSC sought summary judgment against Adidas’ claims.

Sir Andrew Morritt VC refused to grant summary judgment against Adidas. It was non clear, according the Vice Chancellor, that Adidas had no reasonable prospect of success inwards its claims based on Arts 81 too 82 of the EC Treaty. Of item involvement to merchandise score lawyers is ane of the Art.81 arguments employed past times Adidas which goes to the nitty-gritty of the nature of its three-stripes mark. Adidas argued that the Grand Slam Committee enforced its wearing apparel code inwards a discriminatory manner, too that this discrimination was inwards breach of Art.81. According to Adidas, other manufacturers employed distinctive blueprint elements that could direct maintain identified the manufacturer, simply enforcement activeness was exclusively taken against Adidas. The GSC countered that in that place had been no discrimination because no other manufacturer had used a ‘manufacturer’s identification’ too that to autumn inside this definition, the distinctive blueprint chemical component would direct maintain to endure protected past times an IP rights. Adidas countered that in that place would endure no ask for such a manufacturer’s identification to endure protected past times an IP correct [thus widening the potential puddle of blueprint elements that Adidas’ strips could endure compared to inwards social club to found its discrimination claim] too that inwards around cases, such every bit blueprint elements protected past times copyright, IP rights would endure downright irrelevant. The guess concluded on the testify that Adidas had a existent prospect of success inwards establishing that in that place direct maintain been too are other manufacturers who contain distinctive blueprint elements inwards such a means every bit to constitute manufacturers' identifications, simply against whom no enforcement activeness had been taken.

doubts Adidas’ argument, simply largely on a technicality. Surely whatever blueprint chemical component that was perceived every bit a manufacturer’s identification would endure protected past times passing off, too so would give ascent to a blueprint correct (albeit an unregistered one)?