法律教育網

法律英語

2019瑞達法考客觀題學習包

考試內容 報名條件 報名時間 報名方法

成績查詢 考試時間 分 數 線 授予資格

您的位置:法律教育網 > 法律英語 > 經典案例 > 正文

耐克商標侵權案

2016-02-15 11:55  來源:   糾錯

(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)

責任編輯:儀

特別推薦

地圖
法律教育網官方微信

法律教育網微信公眾號向您推薦考試資訊、輔導資料、考試教材、歷年真題、法律常識、法律法規等資訊,只有你想不到,沒有我們做不到!詳情>>

1、凡本網注明“來源:法律教育網”的所有作品,版權均屬法律教育網所有,未經本網授權不得轉載、鏈接、轉貼或以其他方式使用;已經本網授權的,應在授權范圍內使用,且必須注明“來源:法律教育網”。違反上述聲明者,本網將追究其法律責任。

2、本網部分資料為網上搜集轉載,均盡力標明作者和出處。對于本網刊載作品涉及版權等問題的,請作者與本網站聯系,本網站核實確認后會盡快予以處理。

本網轉載之作品,并不意味著認同該作品的觀點或真實性。如其他媒體、網站或個人轉載使用,請與著作權人聯系,并自負法律責任。

3、本網站歡迎積極投稿

漯河| 澳门澳门| 济宁| 朝阳| 沭阳| 湛江| 库尔勒| 廊坊| 广元| 本溪| 汉中| 大理| 漳州| 邹城| 青州| 安庆| 盘锦| 桓台| 攀枝花| 红河| 长垣| 乐山| 阳江| 安岳| 蚌埠| 莱州| 萍乡| 莒县| 朝阳| 五家渠| 东阳| 深圳| 五家渠| 西藏拉萨| 德阳| 禹州| 安吉| 常州| 济源| 莱芜| 巢湖| 洛阳| 泗洪| 惠东| 湖南长沙| 河北石家庄| 怀化| 运城| 临沂| 锡林郭勒| 德阳| 果洛| 鄂州| 海南| 基隆| 广元| 洛阳| 怒江| 新泰| 濮阳| 常德| 贺州| 河北石家庄| 赤峰| 三河| 如东| 台山| 三河| 廊坊| 六安| 迪庆| 宁波| 绵阳| 忻州| 偃师| 安徽合肥| 塔城| 咸阳| 伊犁| 湘潭| 平凉| 博尔塔拉| 赣州| 咸宁| 临猗| 寿光| 济南| 德州| 资阳| 灵宝| 崇左| 双鸭山| 四平| 宿迁| 定西| 清远| 澄迈| 昌吉| 亳州| 汕尾| 日喀则| 江门| 文昌| 沛县| 漯河| 玉溪| 白山| 咸阳| 萍乡| 珠海| 宜都| 唐山| 宝鸡| 邹平| 陇南| 海丰| 肥城| 澳门澳门| 普洱| 慈溪| 宝鸡| 梅州| 湘潭| 红河| 建湖| 益阳| 六安| 马鞍山| 海丰| 商洛| 象山| 龙岩| 长葛| 西双版纳| 南京| 辽源| 贺州| 新沂| 永州| 马鞍山| 垦利| 楚雄| 海安| 安吉| 株洲| 贵港| 新泰| 五指山| 南京| 五指山| 昭通| 新泰| 海安| 楚雄| 莱芜| 吉林长春| 黔东南| 包头| 鹰潭| 凉山| 梅州| 汉中| 宿迁| 武夷山| 宿州| 本溪| 黔西南| 丽江| 瓦房店| 宿州| 宜都| 晋江| 崇左| 庆阳| 潜江| 包头| 商洛| 台湾台湾| 江门| 东海| 渭南| 海西| 吐鲁番| 库尔勒| 诸暨| 铜仁| 佛山| 基隆| 菏泽| 义乌| 黔南| 济宁| 大兴安岭| 巢湖| 淮北| 吐鲁番| 岳阳| 简阳| 锡林郭勒| 赤峰| 绥化| 桐城| 喀什| 安吉| 肥城| 大理| 涿州| 灌云| 山西太原| 宜春| 三沙| 屯昌| 平顶山| 安顺| 益阳| 河源| 任丘| 泰州| 镇江| 汉中| 百色| 锡林郭勒| 青海西宁| 包头| 大庆| 安阳| 简阳| 仁寿| 延边| 海丰| 杞县| 榆林| 巴彦淖尔市| 启东| 启东| 株洲| 舟山| 安顺| 毕节| 抚顺| 龙岩| 唐山| 姜堰| 浙江杭州| 白山| 日喀则| 松原| 咸阳| 新沂| 漳州| 吴忠| 宿迁| 遵义| 绵阳| 舟山| 江门| 阜新| 信阳| 张家界| 任丘| 资阳| 海南海口| 图木舒克| 枣阳| 莱芜| 宿州| 巴彦淖尔市| 如东| 溧阳| 阿勒泰| 三门峡| 渭南| 德阳| 亳州| 洛阳| 茂名| 洛阳| 呼伦贝尔| 东莞| 惠东| 常德| 明港| 寿光| 扬中| 甘南| 邹城| 新沂| 焦作| 山南| 迪庆| 吉林长春| 乐清| 辽源| 桓台| 保亭| 攀枝花| 永康| 余姚| 巴音郭楞| 荆门|