Succulent Arrangement TikToker Has 'JustSuccIt' Trademark Application Opposed By Nike

from the succs-to-be-you dept

As you might expect, Nike often finds itself involved in intellectual property stories. To be fair, the company has been on both sides of the IP coin. There are plenty of stories of Nike playing IP bully: the whole Satan Shoes dustup with MSCHF, its lawsuit happy practice when it comes to counterfeits, and so on. But the company has also found itself on the receiving end of IP action, sometimes very much deserved, sometimes not so much.

Among the company's most guarded IP is the trademark the company has on its famous motto: JUST DO IT. Nike has gone after companies, typically during the trademark application process, whenever there is an attempt to trademark a "Just [word] it" phrase. Most of that action has centered around apparel or athletic companies. But now, a business that produces succulent plant arrangements largely advertised on TikTok has found its trademark application for "JustSuccIt" opposed by Nike.

Andrea Galbreath, the owner of a California-based succulent business, says Nike is opposing the trademark she owns for her company, JustSuccIt. The shoe and athleticwear giant said it opposes her trademark because JustSuccIt could be “damaging to their brand,” according to a TikTok posted by Galbreath on Saturday.

“Nike is comin’ after me!” she says in the TikTok. “I’m just a small business in San Juan Capistrano, trying to plant happiness in the lives of others. So I’m doing my best to get ahead of this. Can you please help me tell Nike to leave me alone?”

Alright, let's stipulate something: Nike's slogan "JUST DO IT" is absolutely a famous trademark. That's important here, because famous marks are afforded way more protection than a standard mark. Because it is a famous mark, and deservedly so, Nike can go beyond the standard likelihood of confusion case for opposing the mark. You will notice that public confusion is not what Nike is complaining about above. Instead, it seems to be going with tarnishment as the reasoning, based on the claim that JustSuccIt would be damaging to its brand.

There is another recognized federal cause of action in the U.S. for famous trademarks known as dilution by tarnishment. This refers to use of a famous trademark in connection with goods or services of poor quality or of an unsavory nature. Dilution can occur even if the two companies are not competitors and there is no likelihood of confusion.

All very true and I suppose Nike's point here is that "JustSuccIt" sounds phonetically identical to "Just suck it", which could be construed as unsavory... except that it isn't in this case. The business sells arrangements made from succulents, a type of plant. I'm not particularly convinced that the first thing that would leap to most people's minds upon hearing "JustSuccIt" is even Nike's slogan. It certainly wasn't mine, though I admit to being wildly unsavory myself.

The product or service in this case is not unsavory. The applied for trademark really isn't either, though I imagine Nike will play heavily on potential interpretations of it that are of an unsavory nature. Still, that's a hell of a fairly miniscule reason to oppose the trademark. And, if that's the approach, it essentially acknowledges that there isn't any concern about public confusion in the marketplace, nor the two companies competing against one another.

So I guess the open question is whether the USPTO will consider "JustSuccIt" unsavory or not.

Filed Under: andrea galbreath, just do it, justsuccit, plant arrangement, shoes, succulents, trademark
Companies: justsuccit, nike

Flip-Flop: Nike Now On The Receiving End Of Trademark Threat Over USPS Inspired Sneakers

from the die-by-the-sword dept

Nike finds itself on our pages again. We're fresh off of the settlement Nike reached with MSCHF over the Lil Nas X "Satan shoes". That settlement sees MSCHF agreeing to buy back at retail prices 666 modified Nike Air Max 97s after Nike sued over trademark. It could have been an interesting case, bringing in all kinds of questions about resale rights, the First Amendment, ownership of property, and more. Instead, it all ends with a posturing settlement that achieves nearly nothing, since these fought-over shoes have suddenly been moonshot into an even more rare and valuable item than they already were. But, Nike gets its ounce of litigation blood and gets to pretend this is all somehow a victory.

And perhaps that settlement will be referenced in another trademark dispute that seems to be brewing between the United States Postal Service and Nike, with Nike this time on the receiving end of the threats.

In an ironic twist, the sneaker giant is being taken to task by the United States Postal Service over an upcoming postal service-inspired sneaker reportedly being planned by Nike. The USPS’s challenge, the latest in a string of public relations headaches for the top athletic brand, all but guarantees the company will end up in court once again — but with the shoe on the other foot.

According to a USPS statement provided to Yahoo Finance, Nike’s experimental Air Force 1 sneaker “is neither licensed nor otherwise authorized by the U.S. Postal Service This is an unfortunate situation where a large brand such as Nike, which aggressively protects its intellectual property, has chosen to leverage another brand for its gain.”

Now, perhaps you're wondering just how much borrowing Nike is doing here. Well...

So, yes, the imagery of this entire sneaker is very clearly an homage to the USPS iconography and dress. Due to that, the USPS statement also noted ominously that it will do everything necessary to protect its "IP rights".

It's worth noting that I don't think this sort of thing represents trademark infringement necessarily. The chief questions in these cases are, first, will the public be confused into thinking there is some kind of official association at play here and, second, does the use in question dilute the brand. I would argue that nobody is going to think that the USPS is somehow now in the sneaker business and, because of that, nobody is going to think less or differently of the federal mail system by this use.

But, on the other hand, those are the same arguments made by those of us who pushed back on Nike's suit against MSCHF.

According to Christopher Buccafusco, a legal expert at the Cardozo Law School in New York City, Nike might find itself on far more shaky ground than when a judge ruled relatively swiftly in its favor.

“Nike’s claims to doing this without a license are much weaker than MSCHF,” he told Yahoo Finance. The latter “is engaged in a pretty obvious set of criticism and comments on Nike and Nike’s role in corporate culture. All of the sorts of things that we think fair use are there to protect,” he explained.

Yet Nike “is not doing any of that. [It’s just saying] that’s a cool logo that USPS uses, we want to use your cool logo. It’s not a commentary on USPS,” Buccafusco added. “Nike is not engaged in a first sale. It’s not like Nike bought USPS logos and stuck them on their shoes. They created a logo that was like the USPS logo because it kind of looks cool to them,” he said.

Note here as well that Buccafusco, despite the above, went on to state that he does not think Nike should lose this case if it does in fact go to court.

But, you know, live by the sword and die by the sword and all that. Given the recent lawsuit and settlement reached, it strains the mind to see how in the world Nike plans to articulate a coherent defense for itself in this case.

Filed Under: postal service sneakers, shoes, sneakers, trademark, usps
Companies: nike

Nike Sues MSCHF Over Its High Profile Satan Shoes, Claiming Unsafe Blood May Dilute The Exalted Nike Swoosh

from the 1st-sale-and-dilution dept

Well, here's a fun one. Over the weekend, the musician Lil Nas X announced that, along with MSCHF, he was selling "Satan Shoes." From the beginning this was all just a silly publicity stunt that more or less played out probably exactly as those involved expected. If you don't know what MSCHF is then it's worth reading up on the organization that claims it's based on "structured chaos" and only ever so often randomly drops some kind of offering for sale, usually in limited quantities that get lots of attention and sell out quickly. As was summarized in a Business Insider article about MSCHF last year:

There's no apparent thread connecting MSCHF's slew of projects: The team has built a browser add-on that disguises your Netflix watching as a conference call, designed a squeaking rubber chicken bong for smoking weed, and created a YouTube channel solely consisting of videos of a man eating everything from a tub of mayonnaise to a photo of Pete Davidson. But for Whaley, the lack of continuity is the point: As long as the team can figure out the resources to create and launch a product, "nothing is safe."

"Our perspective is everything is funny in a nihilistic sort of way," Whaley said. "We're not here to make the world a better place. We're making light of how much everything sucks."

The company originally got the most attention for another pair of shoes -- the "Jesus shoes." That involved a modified Nike Air Max 97 with -- they claimed -- holy water injected into the soles of the shoe. The Satan shoe is a somewhat obvious follow up to the Jesus shoe. This time, 666 pairs of the shoe were made, also upcycled Nike Air Max 97s. Rather than having "holy water" injected into the soles, this one included red ink, with a promise of a single drop of blood (whose blood is never stated), and then some red stitching and embellishments on the shoes.

A whole bunch of people idiotically freaked out about this, like we were back in the Satanic Panic from the 1980s. Even worse, though the whole thing was (1) clearly a stunt and (2) obviously not endorsed by Nike, the usual brigade of pearl clutching culture warriors immediately insisted that Nike was behind the whole thing, and being a culture warrior seems to have more power when you can blame a company for it. Nike was quick to point out that it had nothing to do with all of this, but by Monday the company decided to sue MSCHF over the shoe, making a variety of trademark infringement claims. The lawsuit gives us excellent images such as this one:

Obviously, if you buy a pair of Nikes, you can resell them. And there is the concept of the first sale doctrine that allows you to resell goods that you bought that are protected by copyright or trademark laws. However, as law professor Alexandra Roberts notes in a detailed Twitter thread, 1st sale does not apply to "materially altered" products. Of course, that doesn't mean that Nike will win either. You can argue over whether or not these shoes are actually "materially" altered, or just cosmetically so. Nike includes the ink/blood in the sole as evidence that the alterations are material:

The material alterations include at least referring to the shoe as the Satan Shoe, adding red ink and human blood to the midsole, adding red embroidered satanic-themed detailing, adding a bronze pentagram to the laces, and adding a new sock liner.

Frankly, this feels... pretty weak. There are examples of artists taking others' products -- even those protected by trademark -- and altering them for artistic purposes.

Much of the trademark claims rely not so much on the likelihood of confusion regarding the origin of the shoes, but rather on dilution -- including both blurring and tarnishment. We've argued in the past that it's insane that dilution and tarnishment are a part of trademark law, as they appear to be complete bastardizations of the purpose and intent of trademark. Trademark law -- unlike copyright and patent law -- is really supposed to be about consumer protection. It's supposed to be so that users aren't buying a product they believe is made by this reputable entity, only to be tricked as it was actually built by that unreputable entity. It was only more recently -- through a concerted effort by trademark lawyers who sought to cast trademarks as "property" and put them next to copyrights and patents -- that the law morphed into something that included "tarnishment" and "dilution."

But... those do exist, and will be a key part of the lawsuit if it moves forward and is not settled quickly (as may well happen).

MSCHF’s use of the Nike Asserted Marks and/or confusingly similar marks has caused, continues to cause, and/or is likely to cause irreparable injury to and dilution of the distinctive quality of the Nike Asserted Marks in violation of Nike’s rights under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c). MSCHF’s wrongful use of the Nike Asserted Marks is likely to cause dilution by blurring and the whittling away of the distinctiveness and fame of the Nike Asserted Marks. In addition, MSCHF’s wrongful use of the Nike Asserted Marks in connection with satanic imagery is likely to cause dilution by tarnishment.

I am hard pressed to see how this shoe would "whittle" away at the distinctiveness of Nike's brand, but trademark law can be pretty silly sometimes. Nike also does claim that there is confusion and highlights a bunch of social media posts from very, very stupid people who actually believe the shoe comes from Nike itself.

Of course, there's a decent likelihood that MSCHF is loving every minute of this. The company has said in the past that a lawsuit would "help increase the value" of the products it releases.

Meanwhile, the Fashion Law blog has a detailed analysis of the legal issues here (written before the lawsuit was filed) that also notes that 1st sale might not apply here, given the alterations. However, it also highlights that it could make a fair use claim in response:

On the other hand, given the lengths to which MSCHF routinely goes to build a narrative around its individual drops (all of which are relatively limited in quantity), there is a chance that a fair use claim – satire, maybe? – might serve to shield it from liability for making use of the Nike logo in the process.

Lots of interesting legal questions here -- but on the whole, the entire thing just seems so... freaking... pointless. The shoes are clearly a publicity stunt. A bunch of people fell for it, and now Nike is playing into it with a lawsuit.

It's just a silly pair of shoes, people.

Filed Under: blood, confusion, dilution, drop, lil nas x, publicity stunt, satan shoes, shoes, swoosh, tarnishment, trademark
Companies: mschf, nike

People Freaking Out About Amazon Copying A Shoe Are Totally Missing The Point

from the isn't-competition-good? dept

I know that tons of people are talking antitrust about the big internet companies, and Amazon is a prime target these days. So, perhaps I shouldn't have been surprised last week when there was a minor freakout, starting on Twitter, when Jeff Morris Jr., who works in the internet industry, tweeted out an angry tweet about Amazon supposedly copying Allbirds' famous shoes:

If you've somehow missed it, over the last five years or so, Allbirds merino wool shoes have become somewhat ubiquitous as the "cool shoe" to wear among various folks -- including the 44th President of the United States. Admittedly, they're nice shoes (and crazy comfortable). And, with all such things that become a fashion fad, copycats have quickly followed. Over the last few years there have been a ton of Allbirds-like shoes hitting the market. As I type this, I'm wearing shoes from Awel, that lots of people mistake for Allbirds, because they're... pretty damn similar. But there are many, many other similar shoes out there.

Jeff's tweet went viral, and once that happened, the tech press started to pick up on it. Business Insider wrote an article about it, as did Quartz, The Verge and Engadget, with most of them framing it as "evil" Amazon attacking poor little Allbirds. The Quartz article by Michelle Cheng is the most ridiculous of the bunch, with the following title: "Amazon’s Allbirds clone shows its relentless steamrolling of brands." Without proof, the article suggests that Amazon is using its sales data power to step in with its own clone shoe to undermine competition.

But... that leaves out an awful lot. Including the fact that there are tons of other Allbirds clones out there, and if you search on Amazon for "Allbirds" you actually get a bunch of other clones, and not even the Amazon one. If Amazon were truly nefariously targeting Allbirds and using its powerful data to do so, wouldn't you expect that a search for "Allbirds" on its own site would turn up their particular shoes? Nope. It turns up other ones from lots of other shoe companies, including New Balance, Under Armour, Urban Fox, Adidas, Dr. Scholl's, Keezmz, LeMouton, and lots of others.

So, it may be a fun narrative that Amazon is "targeting" Allbirds and out to crush the shoe company by offering a similar shoe in a style that has become immensely popular from dozens of shoe companies over the last five years, but it's difficult to see how that narrative actually makes sense. Indeed, the story doesn't even hold together on its own. Part of the reason why Allbirds is so popular is because of the materials and the sustainable way in which the company tries to make its shoes. The Amazon clone that has everyone up in arms isn't even all wool like Allbirds' flagship shoe is -- it's only 56% wool (and it's not even clear if it's merino wool at that).

Allbirds has successfully been beating off most of the competition not because it's the only one who can make wool shoes, but because of the overall story and framing of Allbirds itself. People are supporting the company because of the specific product it makes and the company's own reputation. It's not like most Allbirds customers are going to rush to buy Amazon's shoe instead, because even if it looks similar, it doesn't have the reputation that Allbirds has.

And, of course, all of this ignores that copying is how innovation happens. I mean, there has to be some irony in people complaining about Amazon's supposed "monopoly power" at the very same time they're arguing that Allbirds should have a monopoly on wool runners. For years, we've pointed out that copying is standard in the fashion industry, where there is limited protections from copyrights and the like -- and that's actually helped the fashion industry be more innovative, and enabled much more competition, especially from smaller firms, because many start out copying the hot fashions before being able to introduce more original brands.

Now, there might be an argument somewhere that if Amazon were deliberately using its power as a store to wipe out competitors, or to unfairly advantage its own products, that you could show "harm" from the company abusing its dominant position. But producing an inferior shoe in an incredibly popular style -- one that dozens of companies are now producing shoes in -- and then failing to heavily promote that shoe directly on its own site... doesn't seem like it's actually harming anyone. Other than, perhaps, the ability of some tech journalists to keep things in perspective.

Filed Under: copying, innovation, monopoly, shoes
Companies: allbirds, amazon

Shoe Company New Balance Says US Gov't Basically Offered It A Bribe To Support TPP

from the wow dept

We've mostly focused on the impact of the TPP and trade deals on the internet (and also on national sovereignty), because that's the kind of stuff that interests us most around here. We've spent a lot less time looking at the more traditional free trade arguments, in part because that's not nearly as controversial, and in part because -- despite claims to the contrary -- there really aren't that many tariff-related barriers that make a big difference any more. It's generally good to reduce such tariffs, and in response you see the typical response from firms based on whether or not they benefit from those reduced tariffs. The "benefits" of free trade tend to be focused on the companies looking to expand into those markets where tariffs are being lowered or abandoned -- and not so much for companies competing against products from those same countries. Frankly, I find arguments that the companies who freak out about trade deals because it will mean more competition against them a bit tiresome, because I tend to believe competition is a good thing for innovation.

However, the Boston Globe has quite a story about one such company, the sneaker company New Balance, which was quite worried about how the TPP would increase competition from shoemakers in Vietnam. Again, I find those concerns to be overblown, but the next part of the story is where it gets interesting: New Balance is now claiming that it stopped publicly complaining about the TPP after the US government more or less promised it a big government contract, which never came through:

After several years of resistance to the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a pact aimed at making it easier to conduct trade among the United States and 11 other countries, the Boston company had gone quiet last year. New Balance officials say one big reason is that they were told the Department of Defense would give them serious consideration for a contract to outfit recruits with athletic shoes.

But no order has been placed, and New Balance officials say the Pentagon is intentionally delaying any purchase.

New Balance is reviving its fight against the trade deal...

The US government, of course, is insisting the issue of a contract is entirely separate from the TPP, but New Balance said an explicit offer was made. The company notes that while most of the uniform worn by the military is American made, there has always been an exception for sneakers because so few were actually fully made in the US. New Balance apparently decided to change that in hopes of getting a government contract, and the administration more or less said that this would work if New Balance shut up about opposing the TPP:

In 2014, the Pentagon relented. With competition among US manufacturers, officials said they were ready to consider domestically made shoes.

LeBretton said a representative for the Obama administration then asked New Balance to accept a compromise version of the trade deal, partly in exchange for a pledge of help getting the Department the Defense to expedite the purchase of US-made shoes.

The Globe claims that the Defense Department says the reason that it didn't give New Balance a deal was because its shoes weren't durable or cheap enough, but even if that's true, the very idea that the government more or less tried to buy off the company's opposition to the TPP seems highly questionable.

Of course, I wonder, should the TPP get ratified and should the Defense Department then agree that it will only buy American made sneakers... one wonders if Vietnamese sneaker makers would then have an ISDS corporate sovereignty case against the US government? After all, it would be harming "future profits" that the Vietnamese sneaker-makers would have been expecting, and a "buy American" rule could clearly be seen as a non-tariff trade barrier to foreign goods, no?

Filed Under: competition, defense department, shoes, sneakers, tariffs, tpp, ustr
Companies: new balance

Appeals Court Says That You Can Trademark Red Soled Shoes

from the the-man-with-one-trademarked-shoe dept

Last year, we wrote about how high end fashion shoe designer Christian Louboutin* had lost a trademark lawsuit concerning the company's attempt to block other shoe makers from making high heel shoes with red soles. Louboutin is apparently famous for its red soled shoes, but the judge in the case pointed out that this was silly and the company never should have received the trademark in the first place:

“Because in the fashion industry color serves ornamental and aesthetic functions vital to robust competition,” Judge Marrero ruled, “the court finds that Louboutin is unlikely to be able to prove that its red outsole brand is entitled to trademark protection, even if it has gained enough protection in the market to have secondary meaning.”

Unfortunately, on appeal, the 2nd Circuit has disagreed and said that the lower court erred -- though with a specific condition. It claims that Louboutin's red soled trademark is legitimate if and only if it's on shoes with a different color. If the shoe itself is completely red, then others can have a red sole (which was the situation in this particular lawsuit). Still, this seems troubling, as it seems to flat out limit reasonable design choices that other shoemakers might choose to make. The court goes through the caselaw history on colors as trademark, and the question of whether or not a color is "functional" or not (trademarks can't be functional). While the court admits that "aesthetic function and branding success can sometimes be difficult to distinguish" you'd think it would be careful not to overprotect, but the court comes down on the other side here, mainly because it says Louboutin's red soles have created a "distinctive" mark that identifies such shoes as Louboutin's. While I can see where the argument comes from, precluding other designers from offering red soled shoes seems pretty excessive.

Rebecca Tushnet does her customarily comprehensive breakdown of the insane parts of the decision, pointing out that "it's notable just how many contradictions the court has to swallow" to come out with the ruling it does. It basically sidesteps key questions, dances around the caselaw, and figures out a way to back into the conclusion it was comfortable with issuing, while avoiding some larger questions. As a result it's a bit of a mess, but shoemakers be forewarned: apparently red soles on other color shoes is the sole domain of one shoemaker.

* As we wrote in our last post on this case: for reasons that go way beyond my understanding, it seems that one of (if not) the largest comment spammers we get are people trying to sell (probably counterfeit) Christian Louboutin shoes. Talk about bad targeting by spammers. This is not exactly a Louboutin audience. However, we get hundreds of such comments a day. Our spam filters use a few heuristics to determine what is spam and what is not and while it's not definite, there's at least a high likelihood that if you mention "Louboutin" in your comment that it will be held by the spam filter. We'll endeavor to free this as quickly as possible. Or just don't mention it in your comment at all, and hopefully it'll get through...

Filed Under: color trademarks, red, red soles, shoes, trademark
Companies: christian louboutin

DailyDirt: All The Little Things

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Making a product look better than one of its competitors to consumers sometimes comes down to the little things. Useful little features here and there can really add up. But sometimes marketing focuses on things that shouldn't really matter. Here are a few examples that could go either way.

• PUMA is selling shoes without a shoe box. The Clever Little Bag saves all kinds of energy and pollution, but does it really sell more shoes? [url]
• Real wine enthusiasts probably aren't going to take a picture of a security code to make sure their wines are authentic. Call me when there's an iPhone app for isotope analysis... [url]
• The illusion of cleanliness or freshness is a popular marketing gimmick. Everything seems fresher if you put a picture of a fruit on it. [url]
• To discover more interesting advertising-related content, check out what's floating around on StumbleUpon. [url]  

By the way, StumbleUpon can recommend some good Techdirt articles, too.

Filed Under: authentic, bag, packaging, shoes, wine
Companies: puma

Folks Can Digg Shoes For Needy Kids

from the looooots-of-shoes dept

With an offer that reminds me of the OLPC "give 1, get 1" promotion (but hopefully without the delivery complaints), Digg is selling a Digg-branded shoe, made by TOMS Shoes. For those who haven't seen its commercials, TOMS Shoes has the catchy promise (called One for One) that for every pair of shoes it sells, it gives away a pair of new shoes to needy kids in developing countries.



This bit of marketing is brilliant because it ties together a nice "reason to buy" story with a physical good (the shoes), and the whole story promotes both Digg and TOMS Shoes. Eventually, I assume Digg and TOMS could also easily create a Threadless-like store for more custom shoes (instead of T-shirt designs). The current shoe design was created by a Digg employee, but it seems possible that Digg users could submit shoe designs of their own. And apparently, TOMS shoes sells T-shirts, too, so Digg users may get to Digg/Bury some T-Shirt designs someday as well.

Filed Under: branding, marketing, reason to buy, shoes
Companies: digg, toms

Can A Moron Driving A Porsche Recognize The Difference Between The Car And A Pair Of Crocs?

from the that's-for-the-judge-to-determine dept

Reader Sceptic alerts us to a new lawsuit that seems perfect (on various levels) for the old "moron in a hurry" trademark test. Automaker Porsche -- for drivers in a hurry -- has sent a cease-and-desist letter to footwear maker Crocs, claiming that the company's use of "Cayman" for one of its shoes is a violation of Porche's trademark on the same term. As the folks at Footnoted point out:

Now few people would probably confuse Crocs Cayman sandal for the Porsche Cayman. After all, one sells for $29.99 and the other starts at $51,000.

Of course, this is apparently taking place in Germany, and (tragically) the moron in a hurry test (as far as we know) has still only been used in the UK, the US and Canada. But here's a perfect opportunity for its introduction (in a hurry) in Germany.

Filed Under: cars, cayman, moron in a hurry, sandals, shoes, trademark
Companies: crocs, porsche

Can A Moron In A Hurry Explain To Jimmy Choo The Difference Between Shoes And Random Gifts?

from the fits-like-a-glove dept

Lawrence D'Oliveiro calls our attention to the news that high-end women's shoe company, Jimmy Choo, is forcing a small New Zealand gifts website to give up its name using trademark law. The name of the site is Kookychoo.com, though it may be gone soon, as it sounds like the owner of the site is going to give in rather than fight. This is, of course, ridiculous. It's highly unlikely that anyone, let alone our favorite moron in a hurry, would confuse Jimmy Choo shoes with a website selling random gifts like teddy bears, bean bags and candles, among other things. Originally, Choo's lawyers just wanted to prevent the owner from trademarking Kookychoo, but now is demanding she stop using the name entirely. Since it would cost at least $50,000 to go to court should Jimmy Choo sue, the woman is likely to just give up the name. This is corporate bullying at its finest -- abusing tradmark law for no reason other than to shut down a small website that isn't competing with the company at all.

Filed Under: shoes, trademark, websites
Companies: jimmy choo, kookychoo