The main thing that you have to remember on this journey is just be nice to everyone and always smile. Refreshingly, what was expected of her was the same thing that was expected of Lara Stone: to take a beautiful picture.

We woke reasonably late following the feast and free flowing wine the night before. After gathering ourselves and our packs, we headed down to our homestay family’s small dining room for breakfast, where we enjoyed scrambled eggs, toast, mekitsi (fried dough), local jam and peppermint tea.

 We were making our way to the Rila Mountains, where we were visiting the Rila Monastery.

We wandered the site with busloads of other tourists, yet strangely the place did not seem crowded. I’m not sure if it was the sheer size of the place, or whether the masses congregated in one area and didn’t venture far from the main church, but I didn’t feel overwhelmed by tourists in the monastery.

Feeling refreshed

Headed over Lions Bridge and made our way to the Sofia Synagogue, then sheltered in the Central Market Hall until the recurrent (but short-lived) mid-afternoon rain passed.

Feeling refreshed after an espresso, we walked a short distance to the small but welcoming Banya Bashi Mosque, then descended into the ancient Serdica complex.

We were exhausted after a long day of travel, so we headed back to the hotel and crashed. I had low expectations about Sofia as a city, but after the walking tour I absolutely loved the place. This was an easy city to navigate, and it was a beautiful city despite its ugly, staunch and stolid communist-built surrounds. Sofia has a very average facade as you enter the city, but once you lose yourself in the old town area, everything changes.

If You Have It, You Can Make Anything Look Good

Clothes can transform your mood and confidence. Fashion moves so quickly that, unless you have a strong point of view, you can lose integrity. I like to be real. I don’t like things to be staged or fussy. I think I’d go mad if I didn’t have a place to escape to. You have to stay true to your heritage, that’s what your brand is about.

The main thing that you have to remember on this journey is just be nice to everyone and always smile. Refreshingly, what was expected of her was the same thing that was expected of Lara Stone: to take a beautiful picture.

We woke reasonably late following the feast and free flowing wine the night before. After gathering ourselves and our packs, we headed down to our homestay family’s small dining room for breakfast, where we enjoyed scrambled eggs, toast, mekitsi (fried dough), local jam and peppermint tea.

 We were making our way to the Rila Mountains, where we were visiting the Rila Monastery.

We wandered the site with busloads of other tourists, yet strangely the place did not seem crowded. I’m not sure if it was the sheer size of the place, or whether the masses congregated in one area and didn’t venture far from the main church, but I didn’t feel overwhelmed by tourists in the monastery.

Feeling refreshed

Headed over Lions Bridge and made our way to the Sofia Synagogue, then sheltered in the Central Market Hall until the recurrent (but short-lived) mid-afternoon rain passed.

Feeling refreshed after an espresso, we walked a short distance to the small but welcoming Banya Bashi Mosque, then descended into the ancient Serdica complex.

We were exhausted after a long day of travel, so we headed back to the hotel and crashed. I had low expectations about Sofia as a city, but after the walking tour I absolutely loved the place. This was an easy city to navigate, and it was a beautiful city despite its ugly, staunch and stolid communist-built surrounds. Sofia has a very average facade as you enter the city, but once you lose yourself in the old town area, everything changes.

If You Have It, You Can Make Anything Look Good

Clothes can transform your mood and confidence. Fashion moves so quickly that, unless you have a strong point of view, you can lose integrity. I like to be real. I don’t like things to be staged or fussy. I think I’d go mad if I didn’t have a place to escape to. You have to stay true to your heritage, that’s what your brand is about.

Fleet Feet Inc, through franchises, company-owned retail stores, and online stores, sells running and fitness merchandise, and has 182 stores, including franchises, nationwide in the US. Fleet Feet is the owner of trademark “Change Everything” and “Running Changes Everything” used widely for its sports and apparel related goods and services. Nike, Inc., and Nike Retail Services, Inc. (collectively, “Nike”) is in the business of designing, developing, marketing, and selling athletic footwear, apparel, equipment, accessories, and services. Nike began using the phrase “Sport Changes Everything” on large scale advertising campaigns in 2019. This prompted Fleet Feet to file a lawsuit against the use of the phrase by Nike at the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina (Fleet Feet, Inc. v. Nike Inc. 419 F. Supp. 3d 919 (M.D.N.C. 2019)). The District Court was in conformity with Fleet Feet’s contentions regarding likelihood of success on the merits of its trademark infringement claims and granted a preliminary injunction against Nike. Following the injunction ruling, Nike had to stop the use of the phrase “Sport Changes Everything”. Aggrieved by the ruling, Nike appealed against the District Court ruling at the US Court of Appeal for the Fourth Circuit (Fleet Feet, Inc. v. Nike, Inc. 986 F.3d 458 (4th Cir. 2021))and pleaded for the vacation of the preliminary injunction. The US Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal and upheld the injunction granted by the District Court.

Being a major name in the sporting industry, Fleet Feet not only sells Nike’s merchandise in its stores, but has also gained substantial consumer base across the country and earned more than $940,000,000 in revenue. Fleet Feet has been using the phrase “Running Changes Everything” since 2009 and “Change Everything” since 2013. Having filed for registration of both the phrases with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, the latter has been finally registered in 2015 and the former in 2020. As mentioned regarding the Fleet Feet selling of Nike’s products, multiple Nike’s employees were aware of the commercial use of the Fleet Feet’s trademarked phrase.

Nike launched a major advertising campaign in 2019, which featured at various sporting events, with the tagline “Sport Changes Everything”. As per the reports, Nike spent over $16 million on the campaign that included the slogans, apparel, events and social media. Nike specifically undertook to not use the slogans outside the campaign, which was seven months long and was to be, showcased during the February 2020 Super Bowl. Fleet feet contended that the phrases being used by Nike were confusingly similar to that of its own trademarked phrases, and proceeded to file a suit at the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, seeking preliminary injunction against Nike’s use of the tagline.

The complaint filed by Fleet Feet, alleged that Nike was well aware of Fleet Feet’s trademark due to their business relationship. The complaint also stated that the tagline used by Nike was in-fact the exact phrase used by Fleet Feet – “Running Changes Everything” which was subsequently changed to “Sport Changes Everything” after Fleet Feet’s complaint to Nike. Despite the mark being changed from the exact trademarked phrase, Fleet Feet contended that the mark was still “confusingly similar” to its mark “Running Changes Everything”.

For seeking preliminary injunction against Nike, Fleet Feet needed to prove that it has suffered an irreparable harm and will continue to suffer such harm if an injunctive relief is not provided. Moreover, not only were the contentions required to succeed on merits, but it was also required to prove that the injunctive relief was in public interest, as laid down in the case of Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). While delving into the case, the District Court made multiple observations with respect to granting an injunction against Nike. Analyzing the commercial strength of both the entities, the District Court noted that the advertising expenditure deployed by Fleet Feet as compared to Nike’s was just a “drop in the bucket”. With spending of a whooping $16 million dollars, Nike’s impact would definitely be more than that of Fleet Feet’s. Undoubtedly, the District Court agreed with the lower commercial strength of Fleet Feet’s distinctive “Change Everything” and “Running Change Everything”. Considering Fleet Feet’s low commercial strength, the District Court reached a consensus that Nike’s advertisement would definitely lead to a ‘swamp’ effect over Fleet Feet’s mark leading consumers to believe and link Fleet Feet’s mark with that of Nike’s.  

Nike contended that proof of irreparable harm was vital for proving the need for an injunctive relief and that Fleet Feet had failed to put forth any evidence displaying loss of revenue suffered due to Nike’s campaign. However, the Hon’ble District Court Judge observed that it wasn’t necessary for loss or harm to be immediate and could sprout with time. The Judge also noted that “Nike had the option to perform a trademark search in advance—or, if it did one, to respond differently—to ensure its planned campaign would appropriately respect other companies’ marks and would not be subject to court action”. Hence, varying with the contentions put forth by Nike, the judge sided with Fleet Feet’s contentions in the matter and granted an order of injunction against Nike and in favor of Fleet Feet.

As a result of the imposed injunction, Nike’s use of the phrase ‘Sport Changes Everything’ along with any other designation confusingly similar to the phrases ‘RUNNING CHANGES EVERYTHING’ and ‘CHANGE EVERYTHING’ was prohibited. Nike, abiding by the order, discontinued the campaign two months before its designated end date.  

Aggrieved by the order, Nike appealed against the decision before the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Nike argued that the injunction restrained the company’s right to free speech and that the District Court made significant legal error while arriving at the decision. Nike contended that the phrases used for the campaign were to be construed descriptive in nature and that Nike did not intend to use the same in the form of trademarks. It further contended its actions as fair use, negating any bad faith. Despite multiple arguments put forth by Nike, the Fourth Circuit pronounced the decision in Fleet Feet’s favor.

The Fourth Circuit negated Nike’s arguments stating that its quest to overturn the decision was “moot”. Invoking the legal doctrine of moot, the court pointed out the necessary interests that the parties held in the phrases. It noted that the Super Bowl Event had come to an end and that Nike had not used the confusingly similar phrases in the furtherance of the campaign during the said event. Moreover, Nike itself stated that the campaign was limited to the 2020 Super Bowl. Keeping these observations and contentions in mind, the court reached a conclusion that there was a lack of necessary “legally cognizable interest in the validity of the preliminary injunction”. Therefore, the court held that it was not in the interest of the court to consider the present appeal. Hence, the appeal was dismissed as moot.

For the purpose of packaging of finished coils of cable and wire, Reelex Packaging Solutions, Inc. (“Reelex”) filed for the registration of its box designs under International Class 9 at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). The examining attorney refused to register the two box designs for electric cables and wire on grounds that the designs are functional under Section 2(e)(5) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(5) and non-distinctive. Aggrieved by the refusal, Reelex appealed to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) which affirmed the examining attorney’s refusal on similar ground of functionality (In re Reelex Packaging Solutions, Inc., Nos. 87285383, 87285412, 2019 BL 481341 (T.T.A.B. Oct. 23, 2019). Reelex, timely appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) (In re Reelex Packaging Solutions, Inc., 2020-1282 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 5, 2020)). The Federal Circuit’s decision was in consonance with the substantial evidences which supported the Board’s finding and concluded that the designs are functional. Upholding the same, the Federal Circuit has approved the Board’s decision and refused the registration of the boxes.

Describing the features of the boxes, Reelex notes, “Proprietary winding machines wind cable in a figure-eight pattern that allows the cable and wire to be dispensed or ‘paid out’ from the box without kinking and tangling”. Reelex has a patent over its “tangle free technology” which is licensed to various wire and cable manufactures. Describing its technology, it notes the same as, “a patented method of winding a filamentary product (such as cord, wire, cable or tubing) into a figure-eight coil on a specialized coiling machine”. In 2016, Reelex filed two applications for registration of its box designs under International Class 9 at the USPTO. The application no. for the first one was 87285383 (‘383) and the second one was 87285412 (‘412).

Reelex provided the description of each of the boxes as ‘383 trade dress includes coil of cable or wire, a box having six sides where four sides are rectangular having length and width of 12 to 7.5 inches and two sides being substantially square shaped having the length of 12 inches’. The box has a circular hole in the middle of one rectangular side, with the size of 0.75 to 1.00 inches. A tube is extended through the hole and through which the coil is dispensed from the package. Reelex refers the ‘383 trade dress as REELEX I box’. The ‘412 trade dress includes coil of cable or wire, a box having six sides where four sides are rectangular having length between 13 to 21 inches and width between 57% to 72%of length along with two sides being substantially square shaped having its length in between 13 and 21 inches. The circular hole on one rectangular side is of 4 inches in the exact middle. A tube is extended through the hole and through which the coil is dispensed from the package.

The examining attorney refused the registration of the boxes on the premise that the trade dress is functional and non-distinctive. In further examination of the designs, the examining attorney was of the view that, for being registered as a trademark, the source of the goods should be indicative, which the two boxes lack. Aggrieved by the decision, Reelex appealed to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (‘Board’) and the Board conducted an oral hearing in August 2019, subsequently giving their decision in October 2019, affirming the examining attorney’s observation. The refusal by the Board was on two grounds, namely; functionality and distinctiveness.

The Board was of the view that the features of the box related to a utilitarian concern. While examining the designs, the Board noted, “(1) rectangular shape of the boxes . . . which is useful for shipping and storing;” and (2) the built-in handle in the ‘412 design, which makes it easier to lift and carry the box”. The Board further noted that the dimension of boxes and placement of the payout tubes are totally in proportion with the amount and size of the electric wires and cables placed.

Exemplifying the features of the box and to prove the utilitarian purpose that it solves, the Board further noted a few points. It asserted that several features in the box are utility based, including the payout hole allowing the user to have a twist free dispensing and the payout tube “to maintain the radial opening in the coil and to maintain the coil in alignment with the payout hole.” The position of the payout hole near the vertical centre was for providing easy access and a direct path for dispensing the cable. Through all these findings and observations, the Board concluded that the features were “dictated by the utilitarian purpose they serve.”

The Board also considered four factors from In re Morton-Norwich Products, Inc., 671 F.2d 1332 (CCPA 1982) for determining the functionality of the boxes. The primary factor of registration of the utility patent disclosing the utilitarian advantage, favored the functionality aspect of the design. This decision, hence, did not go in favor of Reelex since it already has obtained five utility patents whereby the disclosure being done, stressed functionality. The five patents were:

Aggrieved by the decision, Reelex appealed to the Federal Circuit. The Federal Circuit found “no error in the Board’s functionality analysis”. The Federal Circuit was affirmed by the arrival of the Board’s decision backed by substantial evidences. Reelex’s patent showed that the two boxes were dictated by their function.  Reiterating the Morton-Norwich’s second factor of whether the approach for advertisement relates to the utilitarian advantages, affirmed with the Board’s finding that the advertisement done by Reelex was explicitly attempted for tangle-free dispensing of cables and wires. All the promotion done by Reelex was done showcasing the utilitarian advantage of the design which further proved the functionality characteristic of the design with substantially backed evidence.

Federal Circuit relied upon the Board’s finding while observing the third factor concerning the existence of any alternative design. The Board was of the view that if the functionality was proved based on other considerations, this factor need not to be considered. Rejecting Reelex’s argument that the Board ‘erred’ in sufficiently considering the evidence, the Circuit noted that the Board has “broad discretion” to weigh the evidence present; therefore the Board did not ‘err’.

Having already proved the functional characteristic, the Court found no need for discussing the fourth feature which concerned whether the design resulted from a simple and inexpensive method of manufacturing. Therefore, the Federal Circuit affirmed with the findings of the Board on the aspects of functionality and refused the registration.