Porsche vs. Crocs…
It’s Q season and footnoted regulars know what that means — lots of crazy things buried deep in the filings. Sonya, Kristen and myself spent much of the weekend in our waders working our way through all sorts of filings. Some of the biggest names — Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.A), Yahoo (YHOO), Bank of America (BAC) and Citigroup (C) were filed late Friday and we’ll be posting observations from those filings and others that come in later today over on subscription-only FootnotedPro.
But this one we’re giving away: in the 10-Q that footnoted frequent flyer Crocs (CROX) filed last week, there was an interesting new disclosure about Porsche, the German car-maker, suing Crocs, the Colorado-based shoe manufacturer over the use of the name Cayman. Here’s the snip from the filing:
On May 11, 2009, Crocs Europe B.V. received a letter from Dr. Ing. H.c.F. Porsche AG (“Porsche”) claiming that the Company’s use of the “Cayman” shoe model designator infringes upon their Community Trademark Registration of the mark “CAYMAN” in class 25. Porsche is requesting that Crocs Europe B.V. immediately cease and desist use of the Cayman mark and pay Porsche’s attorney’s fees in conjunction with the issuance of the notice letter. On July 30, 2009 the Company was served with notice of an injunction against Crocs Europe BV’s use of the Cayman mark in Germany.
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. And if this had been filed in the United States, instead of in Germany, we’d be even quicker to dismiss it. But at the very least, it’s got to be an expensive distraction for Crocs, which had to find a law firm in Germany to represent its interests. In the filing, Crocs says it plans to “vigorously defend” itself against the claims. But vigorous defenses rarely come cheaply. It’s not clear from the filing whether Crocs has already stopped selling the Caymans in Germany or not. Any footnoted readers in Germany care to weigh in?
|
Posted in Tags: 10Qs, frequent flyers, new disclosures |
 16 Comments » |
RSS
November 9th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
hmmm. interesting. Porsche is known to vigorously defend their trademarks, even when it doesn’t make sense (as seems to be the case here). As you pointed out, it would be very hard for someone to mistake a shoe (and an ugly one at that) for a Porsche.
What people/lawyer/companies tend to forget, is that a trademark does not remove a name or word from being used in the English language (or any other for that matter). Will Porsche bring suit against Grand Cayman and the rest of the Cayman islands? What about the amphibious Cayman, can you sue an animal?
As for Porsche having to find and hire an attorney in Europe, let’s not forget they are a German company and now part of the largest European car manufacturer in the world (VW). Lawyers are a dime a dozen. As for Croc, I’m sure they have a few corporate attorneys lying around that can answer the call on this one.
November 10th, 2009 at 9:55 am
About like Apple bringing a case against the juicemakers…no more apple juice…not! Makes me want to puke that Porsche would file such a trivial suit. Incredibly poor form for such a supposedly classy company. Surely this isn’t VW’s doing…isn’t there still the sport of Golf?
November 10th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
It’s really stupid since the Crocs Cayman came out in either 2004 or 2005 and the Porche Cayman first model is a 2006.
Maybe Crocs should counter sue.
November 11th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
The most ridiculous thing about this suit is that CROCS is a far superior product than the p.o.s. porsche cayman.Ive worn Crocs and driven a Cayman,the Crocs are way more comfortable.
November 11th, 2009 at 9:09 pm
What on earth is a sandle?
November 12th, 2009 at 2:56 am
Just WOW! Just WOW! I think that Porsche steps outbounds way too often with this kind of stuff! They are way too litigious!
November 12th, 2009 at 8:41 am
porsche for president
November 12th, 2009 at 10:45 am
“And next on Daft News: Porsche sue U.S. Government as they believe national emergency call number puts the Porsche 911 in ‘a bad light’.”
Fools.
November 12th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
“The most ridiculous thing about this suit is that CROCS is a far superior product than the p.o.s. porsche cayman.Ive worn Crocs and driven a Cayman,the Crocs are way more comfortable.”
And that has to be the most ridiculous statement here. As someone that drives a Cayman every day, you clearly have never been near one. I do however believe you own at least one pair of Crocs.
November 12th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
GO PORSCHE
crocs are ugly
November 12th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
Maybe instead of suing Crocs, Porsche should sign them up to release a special PorscheDesign pair of Cayman Crocs made specifically for Cayman drivers! Instead of selling them for $30 a pair, PorscheDesign could charge $120 a pair and pull entice some treehuggers into the Porsche family!
November 12th, 2009 at 6:54 pm
Why have Crocs even bothered to hire a legal team? This is a no-brainer.
Isn’t it?…
Surely, they could also counter-sue the plaintiff for oxygen theft?
November 13th, 2009 at 1:49 am
Breaking news……”Honda sues local authorities throughout the country for the use of ‘Civic Centre’ and ‘Civic Offices’ and countless clubs throughout the country for the defamatory use of ‘Jazz’, …nice !
November 13th, 2009 at 8:18 am
Maybe the Cayman Islands should sue them both!
November 13th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
The irony — The ad agency, Cramer-Krasselt, represents Porsche also represents Crocs.
November 15th, 2009 at 11:35 am
The lawyers win, the shareholders lose. These reports have become too frequent at various companies.