Porsche Sues Crocs Over Trademark Infringement

Posted by Stephanie Startz on November 11, 2009 02:33 PM

crocs porsche

Allow me to clear up some confusion.

The Porsche Cayman is a sexy 2-seater sports coupe born of German engineering. The Crocs Cayman is a snug-fitting lightweight clog, allegedly modeled on “Italian design,” by Americans in Colorado. I understand if you were confused though, they’re practically identical!

Porsche, fearing consumer confusion and the dilution of their established brand, notified the clog manufacturer in May of their alleged infringement. In late July Porsche filed a trademark infringement suit against Crocs in a German court.

Crocs plans to “vigorously defend” themselves in German court. Footnoted expects the suit to be an “expensive distraction for Crocs, which had to find a law firm in Germany to represent its interests.”

Both brands' actions are considerably foolhardy. Porsche may be overreacting, assuming that consumers will associate a beach clog with their relatively young sub-brand and not a group of islands. Crocs could follow a more prudent method of settling; perhaps by removing or renaming the line in Germany. They do have more important struggles ahead of them, like turning a profit.

Do you think that brands help themselves by pursuing legal action in trademark cases? Especially when the products are so different?

More about: Porsche, Crocs, Porsche Cayman, Crocs Cayman, Legal, Automotive, Fashion, Trademark infringement

Corey Morris says:

Despite the sillyness of the matter, it's completely understandable that Crocs doesn't want to be pushed around by the big guys and are making an effort to stand their ground. I think any company would immediately react this way. Until they do a cost/benefit check.

Nevertheless, you'd also think Crocs would have bigger issues on their hands - such as coping with cheap imitations emerging on the market.

Rename the line - find a savvy, market-friendly name - and move on. This matter is far too trivial to pursue.

November 12, 2009 05:12 AM #

buy assignment says:

There is a lot more to this than first sight. Following the court ruling the Unite union has again balloted its members and they are again going to strike. The impact has been that Pilots are not communicating with cabin staff - the team looking after us in the air. Also it has now been revealed that the Unite union has two discussion teams interfacing with BA and neither of these will talk to each other. Whilst this mess of an industrial relations pickle rolls out no one seems to focus on the brand impact and the long term damage to profits and job prospects. Brands are long term assets and unions and management should pay far more attention to how their actions build or destroy brand value as that is the foundation for a successful aitline business that does no want to be the price leader.

March 16, 2010 05:38 AM #

Potty Training says:

The whole thing is stupid and more of the actions Americans would take. I still hope porch wins because crocs are UUUGGLLLYY!

March 24, 2010 12:11 PM #

David Bivins says:

This article misses a fundamental fact of trademarks: if you don't enforce them, you lose them. While it's funny (I guess) to pretend that Porsche thinks people will confuse cars with horrid, ugly, plastic clogs, I think Porsche is protecting the name "Cayman" so that it is associated closely with Porsche and no other manufacturer. Porsche could do this by aggressively marketing the name Cayman, as Xerox had to do in order to protect the word "xerox" from becoming public domain, or through legal means as they are here.
So to answer your question, yes, I do believe that brands help themselves by aggressively defending their trademarks. Brands that were not helped include Escalator, Formica, Linoleum, Raisin Bran, Thermos, Trampoline, Zipper, etc. They're all public domain in the US now due to this process colloquially called "genericide." It gets even more complicated when you cross country boundaries and intellectual property laws change. Aspirin is still a trademark of Bayer in Canada, but not in the US, for example.

November 12, 2009 10:40 AM #

Gabirel Steinmann says:

I think Porsche has misgauged the threat of their brand name, "Cayman", being used by another company of an entirely different market. There's no association between the two. As a consumer, it's very clear to me that the Cayman Crocs are a completely different product that the Cayman Porsche. Porsche is overreacting. Frankly, it comes across as stuck up. I don't fault Crocs for defending themselves vigorously. But I do agree with the author that they should be more concerned about their profits than fight Porsche.

November 12, 2009 12:17 PM #

Tim Shannon says:

I guess those pesky inhabitants of that British Overseas Island territory going by the same moniker better get ready for a court battle. I might confuse the hulking Grand Cayman Hotel with the bistro level Miata on steroids. Though, since the Islander's usage of the term dates back to 1655 they have a pretty good argument on precedent. Now another name comes to mind, Cayenne. Seems Frank's or Tabasco could take a hit on that front too. And maybe we won't be dialing 911 anytime in the future if the Stuttgart braintrust continues to mine the inane. Maybe Porsche marketers should get auf der asses and back on the autobahn of creativity.

November 13, 2009 07:06 PM #

Jatin Rai says:

I agree with David. You have to fiercely protect your trademarks to protect them else they are of no use. Its all about setting a precedent. Any other company before using that name will think that if Porsche can go after a category that was poles apart then there is a very bright chance that it will come after my brand also. Therefore, setting precedent is very important. You have to crush someone to scare others.

For croc it should be about setting priorities right. I know that blood boils after getting such a notice of an allegation that seems very much irrational & to realize that one has been chosen to be crushed, but if the brand sits & thinks with a cool head, indulging into such a fight isn't going to take it anywhere. Its better to focus your energies & resources on other issues & fronts that need the brand's attention.

March 28, 2010 03:00 AM #

Patricia Belyea says:

This sub-branding of a Porsche product line is very different than company brand names such as Thermos and Formica. What do the Cayman Islands and Britain have to say about Porsche appropriating their territory’s name?

November 12, 2009 04:56 PM #

Patricia, I assume that neither the Cayman Islands nor Great Britain have trademarked the word "Cayman" as Porsche has. Trademark is trademark whether or not it's the brand name of your flagship product or a tagline or anything else.
Incidentally, I think the whole thing is moronic and that the chance of "Cayman" undergoing the aforementioned "genericide" is nil in the context of the Crocs case. I'm just bringing up facts about intellectual property law.

November 12, 2009 05:00 PM #

Alec Brown says:

Crocs may rattle its sabre about defending but the real value for them is in the coverage that this "David Vs Goliath" situation generates. My pick is they milk it for a while then quietly back down without the spending of millions on lawyer's fees.

I agree with David: Porsche's action is moronic. But maybe they, too, have a hidden agenda. Maybe Porsche is trying to bring down the Crocs business so they can buy it up and get into selling funny shaped plastic clogs.

November 12, 2009 07:40 PM #

This is true to a large extent that Crocs will milk the issue for some time & then back out. This makes a lot of good business sense & its an opportunity out of a calamity.

But the talk of hidden agenda of Porsche buying crocs is ridiculous.

March 28, 2010 03:06 AM #

danny altman says:

i don't think porsche is so crazy. there is a kind of superagency principle in trademark law that if you are big enough, it doesn't matter what category your antagonist occupies. for example, if i wanted to come out with a product called coca-cola car wax, i would be in trouble because coca-cola is so big that people could easily assume that they are now in the car wax business even if it's something they would never do. it seems to me that porsche is in a similar position. they are not quite big enough to own the name 'cayman' for the entire known universe, but can you blame them for trying? besides, anyone who came that close to owning volkswagen needs to show the world that they still carry a big stick.

November 12, 2009 11:18 PM #

NY Agencyspy says:

The irony -- The ad agency, Cramer-Krasselt, represents Porsche also represents Crocs.

November 13, 2009 07:51 PM #

Which should be a boon for billable hours if they both decide to go to handbags.

November 16, 2009 02:46 PM #

Rico Biriah says:

If we all come back down to earth for a minute then we would realise that this is just a clever stunt fueled by the rubber clogger brigade. I mean who really believes that someone in Porsche is stupid enough to think that anybody wanting a Porsche is going to end up buying a pair of clogs instead. Its so much like the VW Polo Car being confused for the Polo mint sweet that has a whole and yet both of them have co-existed for decades. Come on Porsche grow up and get a sense of humour and give all your new car buyers an exclusive pair of cayenne branded-clogs.

November 23, 2009 07:14 AM #

andrej pompe says:

I agree that Porsche is old and grown-up enough not to be afraid of something that really has nothing to do with traditional German sport car elegancy but on the other hand Porsche should be grateful to Crocs to remind him that having a legendary brand and doing no special communication on a relatively young sub brand is not a picture of a good brand management.

About mixing these two totally non-similar products I would not lose any additionl words.

Everything seems to be a good PR move from either the Crocs side or the Porsche side. They might have agreed in advance about all these just to remind us that they are still here among us and that we should pay more attention to them. After all these publishing there will probably be no suit.

Another thought is that they should both think of making some synergies - like someone before me suggested - give a pair with the car.

On the other hand Cayman has much more to do with crocodiles (Crocs) than Porsche has - so the brand managers at Porsche should rethink the sub-brand name. Cayenne sounds good but is not good for stomach, Carrera means nothing to me and is absolutely the best sub brand name of Porsche (during writng these I found out that there is something that is common to all these 3 names - is the first letter C; who knows maybe these war the brief?!?).

That much from the Sunny side of the Alps.

January 4, 2010 05:45 AM #

Porsche Parts says:

I don't believe that this move of Porsche is trivial. Some customers tend to get confused that this brand may be related to another brand. Therefore, bag image of the other brand also affects the other brand.

January 6, 2010 10:51 PM #

Iswani F. says:

Honestly, those who think this suit has merit are complete idiots. Cayman Islands - please sue Porsche and get it over with. Another waste of investors money and the only clear winners are attorneys! Let's round 'em up, wrap them in chains, and see how deep the Cayman trench really is.

March 20, 2010 06:04 AM #

HomeServe says:

Has nobody told either that Cayman is a name that has belonged to the Cayman Isles for scores of years so these two late comers are arguing over a word neither owns! Honestly at some point in the future we will not be able to talk for fear of some large corporation claiming trademark on some of the words we have used. Look at Stellios with his sickly orange brand trying to claim that Easy .... is his when it is a word that English speaker have used for hundreds of years.

February 1, 2010 10:36 AM #

AT&T Center says:

February 9, 2010 01:23 AM #

Wendy says:

I hate to point out the obvious, but Cayman is also a species of South American crocodile... perhaps that makes the Croc use of the term a little more justified than Porshe's. I'm not a legal expert, but seems like it should be difficult to limit another company's use of a term so broad.

February 16, 2010 12:26 PM #

prefabrik says:

I agree with Wendy. It is true that "Cayman is also a species of Soutg American crocodile.

March 1, 2010 08:56 AM #

SimonCr says:

Great journalism.
Such research. I've just stumbled on this and am actually stunned that it took three months for someone (Wendy) to point out that a Cayman is a species of crocodile. (Have none of you ever played StarFox!!!) 10 seconds with google could have sorted that out. Why on earth do you think the shoes are so named! They are not named after a group of islands, unless of course the team at Crocs is being doubly ironic.

March 25, 2010 11:11 AM #

suhani says:

Thanks for sharing that bit of news.What i think of the issue is that Porsche is over reacting.And even if consumer wouldn't have noticed it , they made sure that consumers do think about it.This would help Croc for sure but would be a waste of money for Porcshe and it's brand.

March 28, 2010 09:39 AM #

eyevive says:

I Don't think that brands help themselves by pursuing legal action in trademark cases especially when the products are so different its become bit complicated

April 3, 2010 04:50 AM #

dermaxin says:

If the product are so different.. I think there is no issue of trademark cases and any legal action...i think Porsche overreacting on this matter...

April 13, 2010 07:41 AM #