Adidas America, Inc. v. Kmart Corporation

Full title: ADIDAS AMERICA, INC. and, ADIDAS-SALOMON, AG, Plaintiffs, v. KMART…

Court: United States District Court, D. Oregon

Date published: Oct 3, 2007

05-CV-120-ST (D. Or. Oct. 3, 2007)

Opinion

05-CV-120-ST.

October 3, 2007

STEPHEN M. FELDMAN, THOMAS R. JOHNSON, Perkins Coie LLP, Portland, OR, JERRE B. SWANN, WILLIAM H. BREWSTER, R. CHARLES HENN, JR., CHRISTOPHER M. HANES, Kilpatrick Stockton LLP, Atlanta, GA, Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

CRAIG D. BACHMAN, KENNETH R. DAVIS, II, PARNA A. MEHRBANI, WILLIAM T. PATTON, Lane Powell PC, Portland, OR, Attorneys for Defendants Kmart Corporation and Footstar, Inc.

KENNETH R. DAVIS, II, Lane Powell PC, Portland, OR, STEPHEN J. HORACE, Lathrop Gage, LC, Boulder, CO, Attorneys for Defendant Elan Imports, Inc.

ORDER

ANNA BROWN, District Judge

Magistrate Judge Janice M. Stewart issued Findings and Recommendation (#307) on July 13, 2007, in which she recommended the Court deny the Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment (#279) of Defendants Kmart Corporation and Footstar, Inc. Plaintiffs and Defendants filed timely Objections to the Findings and Recommendation. The matter is now before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b).

When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). See also United States v. Bernhardt, 840 F.2d 1441, 1444 (9^th Cir. 1988); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9^th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982).

This Court has carefully considered the Plaintiffs' Objections to the analysis in the Findings and Recommendation regarding Plaintiffs' "restart the clock" argument and Defendants' Objections to the analysis in the Findings and Recommendation as to the issues of laches, the degree of fame of the adidas mark, and whether Kmart ever "used the mark in commerce." Upon de novo review of the pleadings and the record, the Court concludes the parties' Objections do not provide a basis to modify the Findings and Recommendation.

CONCLUSION

The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Stewart's Findings and Recommendation (#307) and, accordingly, DENIES the Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment (#279) of Defendants Kmart and Footstar.

IT IS SO ORDERED.