Under Armour Files Trademark Suit Against Ass Armor

from the turn-the-other-cheek dept

Show of hands: who remembers the North Face vs. South Butt saga? Ah, yes, the trademark battle built perfectly for those of us with a sophomoric sense of humor, fully entertained us three years ago, when an upstart clothier attempted to be funny and the humorless lawyers at North Face cried consumer confusion. While the claim of confusion was as laughable as the rest of the story, the court proceedings saw South Butt agree to change its brand name. Which it did...to Butt Face, because why the hell not? South Butt/Butt Face, after all, was pimping its own publicity by streisanding its way through court proceedings, all thanks to North Face refusing to put down the litigation stick.

Perhaps snowboarder Casey Sherr was taking notes at the time for his eventual release in 2013 of his Ass Armor clothing company, which of course has Under Armour's shorts in a twist.

The Ft. Lauderdale company faces a trademark infringement lawsuit from Under Armour — and plans to fight. The $3 billion Baltimore athletic apparel maker also accused the snowboard shorts maker of unfair competition and cybersquatting for using the name Ass Armor and a tagline that could be confused with Under Armour's. The defendant copies Under Armour by using similar lettering and putting the Ass Armor name along the shorts' waistband, the lawsuit says.

"Making matters worse, similar to Under Armour's well-known and widely promoted Protect This House tagline mark, defendants use, advertise and promote their Ass Armor mark, name and products… in connection with the Protect Your Assets tagline," says the lawsuit, filed last month in U.S. District Court in Maryland.
Could the well-known Under Armour brand and imagery be somehow confused with Ass Armor and its logo?


Frankly, it stretches credulity to believe that such confusion is likely. More likely this is simply the latest in a long line of battles Under Armour's legal team has staged for itself, having previously gone after Skechers, Salt Armour Inc., and others. Much like the South Butt case, it's woefully likely that all the courts will see is the obvious play on some of the more generic aspects of Under Armour's marks rather than actually weighing any real concerns over customer confusion.

What's clear is that trademark wasn't designed to keep this kind of stuff tied up in court battles like this. Unlike South Butt, Ass Armor appears to be willing to fight the battle.

"We strongly believe the lawsuit filed by Under Armour has no merit," said Scherr, president of the company that makes only the padded shorts, in an email Thursday. "Ass Armor has spent months fighting with Under Armour in front of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board and then, without notice, Under Armour filed this matter in federal court. We believe this is a classic David and Goliath battle. As David, we intend to fight."
Protecting its assets is part of the Ass Armor way, after all.

Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: trademark
Companies: ass armor, under armour


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 27 Feb 2015 @ 3:57pm

    Lawyers, making the world a better place...
    *falls over laughing*

    link to this | view in thread ]

  2. icon
    Ollie (profile), 27 Feb 2015 @ 4:18pm

    Re:

    Hey, there's always Ken "Popehat" White. He's not so bad.

    link to this | view in thread ]

  3. icon
    Miles Barnett (profile), 27 Feb 2015 @ 4:28pm

    That Logo is Priceless

    I was expecting some crass, adulterated version of the Under Armor logo. That thing is LOL funny. I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I'm not confused.

    link to this | view in thread ]

  4. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2015 @ 4:33pm

    Re:

    Some do actually work to make the world a better place like:
    Karen Sandler.
    Eben Moglen
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Lessig

    link to this | view in thread ]

  5. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2015 @ 5:01pm

    How can anyone think your own customers are so stupid?

    I work in retail and can't even comprehend how little respect you would need to have to ASSUME customers can't tell the difference in brands IF they want a certain brand for something.

    IF they don't want a certain brand, branding won't matter at purchase time unless it either sucks or is totally awesome. And this only affects future purchases.

    I mean... Seriously...

    link to this | view in thread ]

  6. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2015 @ 5:05pm

    Really?

    How is that supposed to be the same? The names don't even sound the same. And even if they both produce underwear we still live in a non monopolistic world which means that more than one company is allowed to produce underwear.
    FFS their logo isn't even close to be the same. The only thing I can imagine which the judge can do is laugh during the whole thing.

    link to this | view in thread ]

  7. icon
    Blackfiredragon13 (profile), 27 Feb 2015 @ 5:46pm

    Re: Re:

    He also happens to be very funny about Ponies.............................................................................................. ........................................................................

    link to this | view in thread ]

  8. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2015 @ 6:04pm

    Re: Re:

    Not to mention plenty of the lawyers who work at EFF or the ACLU.

    link to this | view in thread ]

  9. icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 27 Feb 2015 @ 7:07pm

    Re:

    O_O

    That moment when people miss the joke.

    Cause I've never interacted with Popehat, or sent him lots of Pony meme's.
    Cause I've never been targeted in a lawsuit the EFF stepped into.

    One might need to accept the idea that I can say Lawyers and not mean all of them... just most of them.

    link to this | view in thread ]

  10. icon
    orbitalinsertion (profile), 27 Feb 2015 @ 11:23pm

    Carnegie Steel and US Steel went through this a lot too, didn't they? *rolls eyes*

    link to this | view in thread ]

  11. icon
    art guerrilla (profile), 28 Feb 2015 @ 4:04am

    Re:

    banksters, lawyers (hmmm, funny there is a huge overlap in those cohorts) and car salesdroids: great for plugging sinkholes, not so good for civilization...

    link to this | view in thread ]

  12. icon
    DOlz (profile), 28 Feb 2015 @ 5:43am

    Considering the abuse of copyright and trademark by these humorless loons, its a good thing Noah Webster has been dead for over 70 years or his estate would have a field day.

    link to this | view in thread ]

  13. icon
    Atkray (profile), 28 Feb 2015 @ 10:28am

    The way Under Armor quickly went from a unknown little company to a massive sports brand with their name plastered all over everything has always made me have reservations about the company.....


    Now I have confirmation that I should NEVER purchase anything with their name or logo on it.

    link to this | view in thread ]

  14. icon
    z! (profile), 28 Feb 2015 @ 5:46pm

    Thinking back to Jordache Enterprises, Inc. v. Hogg Wyld, Ltd., 828 F.2d 1482 (10th Cir. 1987):

    http://blog.legalsolutions.thomsonreuters.com/legal-research/headnote-of-the-day/hnod_11-11-13 /
    “Jordache” trademark for blue jeans was not infringed by manufacturer that identified its blue jeans for larger women with smiling pig and word “Lardashe” on seat of pants; striking dissimilarities in designs used in marks greatly outweighed any similarities, manufacturer intended to parody but that intent was not to confuse the public, and survey given by trademark owner did not demonstrate actual confusion.

    link to this | view in thread ]

  15. icon
    dparadis (profile), 28 Feb 2015 @ 7:20pm

    Name of the Action

    Ass v. Ass anyone?

    link to this | view in thread ]

  16. icon
    hopponit (profile), 2 Mar 2015 @ 10:22am

    ass armor

    In the army we had a phrase we used a lot. CYA. It made it into common usage, it means Cover Your A--. Thanks to Under Armours lawyers I think I'll do that with this lovely new product just to give them the finger.

    link to this | view in thread ]

  17. icon
    hopponit (profile), 2 Mar 2015 @ 10:25am

    Re: How can anyone think your own customers are so stupid?

    I believe that the customers that appear stupid belong to the lawyers.

    link to this | view in thread ]


Follow Techdirt
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Loading...
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.