Already v Nike could increase litigation risk for trade mark owners
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Already v Nike could increase litigation risk for trade mark owners

supreme-court-building.jpg

After being sued by Nike for allegedly infringing its trade mark on a best-selling pair of sneakers, sports manufacturer Already is urging the Supreme Court to let it pursue cancellation of the mark despite Nike’s efforts to drop the case

The lawsuit, Already v Nike, may force brand owners to think twice about suing for trade mark infringement. If Already prevails, trade mark owners will no longer be able to automatically end litigation they have started by signing a covenant promising not to sue their competitors.

nike-trademark-case.jpg

By signing the covenant, the brand owner aims to strip the district court of jurisdiction over the infringer’s declaratory judgment claim or counterclaim for cancellation of the mark. The same strategy is also frequently used in patent lawsuits.

The dispute began in 2009 when Nike sued, claiming Already’s "Sugar" and "Soulja Boy" shoes (pictured) violated Nike’s trade mark covering design features of its “Air Force 1”, a low-cut sneaker. After Already countersued to invalidate the trade mark, Nike abandoned its claim and offered a covenant promising not to sue Already for copying the design.

Nike’s lawyer Thomas Goldstein, of Goldstein & Russell, told the US Supreme Court on Wednesday that the covenant negates the dispute. But James Dabney, representing Already, claimed his client still has a legitimate interest in getting the trade mark cancelled, since the covenant only covers current or previous designs or obvious spin-offs, not new designs.

Dabney, of Fried Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson, argued that as a sports shoe manufacturer, Already is likely to produce a new shoe which falls outside the terms of the covenant in the future. Having already been sued by Nike, he said his client is more likely than other companies to be sued in future, and that the risk of litigation had deterred investors. Already is on Nike’s internal top 10 list of infringers.

Some justices seemed to regard this argument as speculative.

“To say you are in the business of producing new footwear, at least to me, suggests nothing, because the question is what the footwear looks like, not that you're producing new footwear,” said Justice Stephen Breyer.

Peter Brody, an IP partner of Ropes & Gray who has been following the case, said the case hinges on whether Already has a legitimate legal dispute with Nike as opposed to an academic disagreement.

“You get the sense as you read into the case that Already’s lawyer was stressing that Nike is trying to have it both ways and manipulating the system a little bit,” he said.

“On the other hand, there’s this pesky legal requirement that the case must be a live, pressing argument.”

He said Already has other options for pursuing cancellation, such as through the PTO’s appeal process, but acknowledged “a common perception among trade mark challengers that the PTO is friendlier towards trade mark owners than the courts”.

Katherine Basile, chair of the trade mark practice group at Novak Druce + Quigg, said a litigant’s advantage of being able to withdraw from a case is not exclusive to trade mark disputes.

She said if Nike had agreed not to sue Already over any future shoe, this could have put the brand at risk of appearing to have abandoned the mark.

“The courts have actually said that if you don’t enforce your trade mark rights you can lose them.”



more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

A 36-member team from Zhong Lun Law Firm, including six partners, will join the newly formed East IP Group
The Delhi High Court sided with Ericsson against Indian smartphone maker Lava, bringing the companies' nine-year dispute to a close
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Tennessee has passed the ELVIS Act, a law that fights against AI models that mimic the voice and likeness of music artists
Rob Stien, chief communications and public policy officer at InterDigital, says the EU has forgotten innovators while trying to solve an issue that doesn’t exist
As Australia’s Qantm IP leans towards being acquired by a private equity company, sources discuss what it could mean for IP firms
Law firms that are conscious of their role in society are more likely to win work, according to a survey of over 23,000 in-house professionals
Nghiem Xuan Bac Pham, managing partner of Vision & Associates, discusses opportunities created by the US-China rift as well as profitability issues facing IP practices
Douglas Leite and two of his colleagues were intrigued by Bhering Advogados’s mission to grow its patent litigation practice
Each week Managing IP speaks to a different IP practitioner about their life and career
Gift this article