Adidas Am., Inc. v. Payless Shoesource, Inc., 3:01-cv-01655 (D. Or. Nov. 8, 2001). $305 million judgment. The issue was a trade mark infringement of 3 stripes. So, that’s more than $100m per stripe as Marty Schwimmer has noted. There are some documents related to this case at Marty’s website too. Adidas is very protective when it comes to this sign/mark. As an example you may read cases that were brought before The Court of Justice of the European Communities. C-102/07, adidas and adidas Benelux.
First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that the requirement of availability cannot be taken into account in the assessment of the scope of the exclusive rights of the proprietor of a trade mark, except in so far as the limitation of the effects of the trade mark defined in Article 6(1)(b) of the Directive applies.
C-408/01, Adidas-Salomon AG and Adidas Benelux BV v. Fitnessworld Trading Ltd., OJ C 304, 13.12.2003, p. 5.
1. A Member State, where it exercises the option provided by Article 5(2) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, is bound to grant the specific protection in question in cases of use by a third party of a later mark or sign which is identical with or similar to the registered mark with a reputation, both in relation to goods or services which are not similar and in relation to goods or services which are identical with or similar to those covered by that mark.
2. The protection conferred by Article 5(2) of Directive 89/104 is not conditional on a finding of a degree of similarity between the mark with a reputation and the sign such that there exists a likelihood of confusion between them on the part of the relevant section of the public. It is sufficient for the degree of similarity between the mark with a reputation and the sign to have the effect that the relevant section of the public establishes a link between the sign and the mark.
3. The fact that a sign is viewed as an embellishment by the relevant section of the public is not, in itself, an obstacle to the protection conferred by Article 5(2) of Directive 89/104 where the degree of similarity is none the less such that the relevant section of the public establishes a link between the sign and the mark. By contrast, where, according to a finding of fact by the national court, the relevant section of the public views the sign purely as an embellishment, it necessarily does not establish any link with a registered mark, with the result that one of the conditions of the protection conferred by Article 5(2) of Directive 89/104 is then not satisfied.
Well, what can I say? Such marks and sign will always bring public controversy. I can unmodestly recommend you my post titled “Non-traditional trademarks in Polish case law” and “Reclaim Magenta“.