To me, what sets this dispute apart is the fact that Converse once owned PF Flyers, and marketed PF Flyers as part of the Converse brand. Converse acquired PF Flyers in the 1970s but was required to sell the PF Flyers brand for antitrust violations. During the time that Converse owned PF Flyers, they promoted the sale of PF Flyers alongside Converse’s Chuck Taylor All Stars. Converse sold PF Flyers and a few transactions later, PF Flyers were acquired by New Balance in 2001. New Balance’s legal argument, among others, is that Converse’s sale of the PF Flyers product line to a third-party approximately 40 years ago constitutes a ratification of the right to compete with PF Flyers footwear.
I can’t hate on New Balance. The company is an American-owned company. They manufacture footwear in the US –
maybe the only major footwear company that does.
The brand has a fascinating history as recounted in their
Complaint that includes being the first footwear company
to pair with an athlete to endorse the brand. In the case
of PF Flyers, the athlete was Bob Cousy in 1958.
I’ve heard the expression “he’s got his PF Flyers on” when
remarking on an athletic feat. What I didn’t know is
that the expression relates to the PF Flyers marketing campaign
of the 50s and 60s of “Run Faster Jump Higher.”
According to New Balance’s complaint, Nike and New Balance were friendly competitors for most of the last 10+ years. When Nike sued Sketchers and the other 30 companies, New Balance was not included as a Defendant. New Balance thereafter approached Nike to discuss continued co-existence, and Nike’s response was to threaten to include them in the litigation, so New Balance filed their action against seeking a Declaratory Judgment.
This is going to be an interesting one to watch.