法律教育网

法律英语

2019瑞达法考客观题学习包

考试内容 报名条件 报名时间 报名方法

成绩查询 考试时间 分 数 线 授予资格

您的位置:法律教育网 > 法律英语 > 经典案例 > 正文

耐克商标侵权案

2016-02-15 11:55  来源:   纠错

(Reuters) - Nike Inc (NKE.N) won a victory at the U.S. Supreme Court barring a smaller rival from suing to void the company's trademark for its top-selling Air Force 1 sneakers.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for a unanimous court on Wednesday that Nike's promise not to pursue an infringement lawsuit against Already LLC, maker of Yums sneakers, meant that the Texas company could not pursue its own trademark challenge.

“Already's arguments boil down to a basic policy objection that dismissing this case allows Nike to bully small innovators lawfully operating in the public domain,” Roberts wrote. But the argument did not justify letting its lawsuit proceed, he wrote.

Wednesday's decision upheld a November 2011 ruling by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York.

James Dabney, a lawyer for Already, did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Nor did Nike.

Wednesday's decision may help companies such as Nike rival Adidas SE (ADSGn.DE) and luxury goods makers Coach Inc (COH.N) and LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton SA (LVMH.PA), which often sue to prevent alleged imitators from interfering with their revenue streams and customer goodwill.

The case began in 2009, when Nike claimed in a lawsuit that Already's Sugar and Soulja Boy shoes infringed Nike's trademark on the stitching, eyelet panels and other features of Air Force 1. Nike, based in Beaverton, Oregon, launched the low-cut Air Force 1 sneaker in 1982 and sells millions of them each year.

After Already countersued to void the trademark, Nike dropped its lawsuit, believing Yums was not a commercial threat, and gave a promise in the form of a covenant not to sue Already.

But Already, based in Arlington, Texas, refused to drop its own case and accused Nike of dropping the original lawsuit to deprive courts of jurisdiction.

DOROTHY'S RUBY SLIPPERS

Roberts, however, said that allowing Already's lawsuit to continue would encourage large and small companies to use litigation as a “weapon” rather than as a last resort to settle disputes, which could discourage innovation.

“Accepting Already's theory may benefit the small competitor in this case,” he said. “But lowering the gates for one party lowers the gates for all. As a result, larger companies with more resources will have standing to challenge the intellectual property portfolios of their more humble rivals - not because they are threatened by any particular patent or trademark, but simply because they are competitors in the same market.”

Roberts also agreed with Nike that Already was unlikely to produce any shoe that would not be protected.

“If such a shoe exists, the parties have not pointed to it, there is no evidence that Already has dreamt of it, and we cannot conceive of it,” Roberts wrote. “It sits, as far as we can tell, on a shelf between Dorothy's ruby slippers and Perseus' winged sandals.”

Justice Anthony Kennedy concurred in the decision, saying that other companies should not assume they can automatically end rivals' trademark cases with covenants similar to Nike's.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Sonia Sotomayor joined Kennedy's concurrence.

Two companies with well-known trademarks, clothing maker Levi Strauss & Co and automaker Volkswagen AG (VOWG_p.DE), filed briefs supporting Nike.

The case is Already LLC v. Nike Inc, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 11-982.

(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel; Editing by Dan Grebler)

责任编辑:仪

特别推荐

地图
法律教育网官方微信

法律教育网微信公众号向您推荐考试资讯、辅导资料、考试教材、历年真题、法律常识、法律法规等资讯,只有你想不到,没有我们做不到!详情>>

1、凡本网注明“来源:法律教育网”的所有作品,版权均属法律教育网所有,未经本网授权不得转载、链接、转贴或以其他方式使用;已经本网授权的,应在授权范围内使用,且必须注明“来源:法律教育网”。违反上述声明者,本网将追究其法律责任。

2、本网部分资料为网上搜集转载,均尽力标明作者和出处。对于本网刊载作品涉及版权等问题的,请作者与本网站联系,本网站核实确认后会尽快予以处理。

本网转载之作品,并不意味着认同该作品的观点或真实性。如其他媒体、网站或个人转载使用,请与著作权人联系,并自负法律责任。

3、本网站欢迎积极投稿