Experience
Under Armour
Uncle Martian
On what happened to be World Intellectual Property Day, a Chinese company calling itself “Uncle Martian” staged a high-profile fashion show to announce its entry into the athletic apparel industry. The launch went viral—drawing immediate criticism from the international community—as Uncle Martian had blatantly copied Under Armour’s famous UA logo and shoe designs. In collaboration with local counsel in China, Finnegan and Under Armour quickly commenced legal action before the People’s Higher Court of Fujian Province of the People’s Republic of China, seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions, monetary damages, and other relief against Uncle Martian’s multitude of violations of China’s trademark and unfair competition laws. Following the submission of clear evidence of infringement and in anticipation of the commercial launch of Uncle Martian’s knock-off products, the Higher Court issued a preliminary injunction in Under Armour’s favor. The Higher Court then issued a further ruling ordering Uncle Martian to permanently stop using the contested trademarks, destroy all infringing products, pay approximately $300,000 (RMB 2,000,000) in damages, and publish a statement to “eliminate the adverse effect of Uncle Martian’s infringement.” The Supreme People’s Court, the highest court in China, affirmed the decision, securing a complete win for Under Armour.
This case is significant because injunctions, particularly preliminary injunctions, have rarely been granted by Chinese courts. The Higher Court’s and Supreme People's Court's recognition of Under Armour’s valuable intellectual property rights and the urgency in protecting those rights sends a strong message to would-be copycats and supports Under Armour’s continued growth in an important market.
Finnegan secures strategic damages award for Under Armour in trademark infringement litigation
Under Armour
Under Armour, Inc. v. Salt Armour, Inc.
Under Armour, Inc.
Under Armour, Inc. v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc.
Under Armour, Inc.
Under Armour, Inc. v. Energy Armor, Inc.
Under Armour, Inc.
Rawlings Sporting Goods Company Inc. v. Under Armour, Inc.
Under Armour, Inc.
Potential harm to AMC’s reputation increased urgent need for preliminary relief
AMC Mortgage Corp. (AMC)
SplitFish AG, SplitFish Gameware, Inc., and Nabon Corp.
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.