Jack Wolfskin - Litigation

Litigation

Jack Wolfskin has a history of aggressive legal action related to their paw print logo. In 2002 they succeeded in prohibiting the taz newspaper from using a paw print design on merchandise designed for outdoor use on the grounds that the taz logo designed in 1978 was not registered as a trademark, whereas the Jack Wolfskin logo was registered in 1982. This led to many people boycotting their products.

In October 2009 Jack Wolfskin's lawyers sent demands for damage payments to handicraft hobbyists who had used paw designs in their creations, irrespective of whether the paw design was of wolf, cat or other animal. This prompted a backlash in online forums for handicrafts and bloggers documenting corporate behaviour, outraged at the bullying tactics used by a large firm against individual hobbyists with barely measurable income through clothing and no intention to mimic Jack Wolfskin goods. The protest reached national news media in Germany. A blunt refusal to back down by Jack Wolfskin led to calls to boycott their products in several online communities in Germany and abroad. As the impact of the negative publicity became apparent Jack Wolfskin later issued a press release to indicate they would in future open dialog directly with people it suspected of breaching its copyright, rather than sending damage payment demands as the first contact.

In November 2009 Jack Wolfskin threatened the Dutch company Bearwear, a clothing supplier to the gay bear scene, with legal action causing it to suspend its European web shop and generating ill-feelings to Wolfskin with its customers. This was eventually resolved, allowing Bearwear to continue trading with its logo that incorporates a bear paw print.

In August 2010 Jack Wolfskin have signed a 3-year deal to sponsor the English football club Liverpool, in a chance to increase their exposure in The UK.

On 19 December 2011 the Civic Association Dog Soul from Slovak Republic (a non-profit organization) received an e-mail with a copy of a letter from an attorney and patent office representing the JACK WOLFSKIN Ausrüstung für Draussen GmbH & Co. KGaA company. Simultaneously - without any valid court decision - they directly accused them of violating trademark property rights.