## Facts

- Adidas-Salomon AG and adidas America, Inc. alleged that Target Corp. and co-defendants sold athletic shoes imitating the “Original Superstar” shoe and adidas’s diagonal three-stripe mark.
- Adidas claimed protectable trade dress in the Superstar’s overall appearance, including three diagonal side stripes, a flat sole, a “shell toe,” and a heel patch.
- Adidas alleged the accused shoes were marketed to similar purchasers and created a likelihood of confusion as to source or sponsorship.
- To show distinctiveness and secondary meaning, Adidas offered evidence such as unsolicited media references and cultural references (including rap lyrics) associating the shell-toe look and overall design with Adidas.
- Defendants challenged the claimed trade dress as functional and therefore unprotectable.
- The court treated defendants’ motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment; a magistrate judge recommended denial, and defendants objected.

## Issues

1. Whether defendants were entitled to summary judgment on the ground that the Superstar’s claimed trade dress features (individually or combined) were functional and unprotectable.
2. Whether Adidas had sufficient evidence of distinctiveness and secondary meaning to proceed on trade dress claims.
3. Whether trade dress could be evaluated as an overall combination of features rather than by isolating each element as independently protectable or functional.

## Decision

- The district court conducted de novo review of the objected-to portions of the magistrate judge’s recommendation.
- The court adopted the Findings and Recommendation and denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
- The court held that genuine disputes of material fact remained regarding:
  - whether the asserted features were functional (alone and in combination); and
  - whether the overall design had acquired distinctiveness and secondary meaning.

## Legal Principles

- Trade dress protection is unavailable for functional product features; functionality is a fact-intensive inquiry often unsuitable for summary judgment when the record is disputed.
- Distinctiveness and secondary meaning may be shown by marketplace evidence, including media and cultural references, and ordinarily present factual questions for the factfinder when contested.
- Trade dress may be assessed based on the product’s overall image and combination of elements; even if individual elements are common or partly functional, the total configuration may still be protectable if nonfunctional and source-identifying.

## Conclusion

The court allowed Adidas’s trade dress infringement and related claims to proceed because the record showed triable disputes over whether the Superstar shoe’s overall configuration was functional and whether consumers associated that configuration with Adidas as a single source.


Adidas-Salomon AG v. Target Corp., 228 F. Supp. 2d 1192 (D. Or. 2002)