Eli Lilly Enlists Congress In Fight Against Canada For Refusing Patent On Useless Drug

Nike, Huge IP Proponent, Blatantly Infringes Shawne Merriman's Trademark

from the live-by-IP-law,-die-by-IP-law dept

Thu, Apr 17th 2014 3:47pm — Timothy Geigner

Let's lay out a couple of things we know. First, trademark is one of the better IP laws out there, ostensibly designed to limit customer confusion between brands (though it's still open to significant abuse). We also know that Nike, maker of all things apparel, firmly believes in the strongest of protections against anyone infringing on any of their intellectual property. We also know that Nike firmly believes that limits on copying sure as hell don't apply to Nike.

But I'm not sure we knew just how brazen they could be. Such appears to be the case when Nike decides to just blatantly use someone else's trademark of which they were absolutely aware.

Former San Diego Chargers linebacker Shawne Merriman is suing athletic equipment giant Nike in San Diego federal court, alleging unfair competition and trademark infringement of his "Lights Out" brand. The suit, filed by Merriman's company, Lights Out Holdings, LLC, demands immediate injunctive relief to stop Nike's alleged actions, plus millions of dollars in damages. Merriman said he holds the federal trademark for the "Lights Out" brand on a Nike clothing line, which includes a broad range of apparel for men, women and children.

We deal a lot with frivolous trademark threats and suits that never appear to amount to much of the customer confusion the law is supposed to address, but this doesn't appear to be one of those cases. We're dealing with Nike using the mark, which Merriman holds, on similar sports apparel and clothes. Merriman is a sports figure whose company produces a clothing line. What makes this most egregious is that Nike was quite aware of the mark.

In late 2006 or 2007, according to the lawsuit, Nike entered into negotiations with Merriman for a "Lights Out" line of apparel. Negotiations between Merriman and Nike were unsuccessful but "after these discussions Nike decided to use the `Lights Out' clothing brand anyway," the suit alleges.

How nice of them. I'm sure they would look quite kindly on anyone who decided to just appropriate their infamous swoosh. Hypocrisy, thy name is Nike.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: hypocrisy, lights out, shawne merriman, trademark
Companies: nike

10 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Mark1 (profile), 17 Apr 2014 @ 7:33pm

Nike lawyers
I live in Portland Oregon and know one of their attorneys. His job is leasing store space for Nike outlets but there is an army of lawyers at Nike. Nike would not be suing unless they thought they had a chance of success.
The post you wrote sounds like a pretty open and shut case but, there is probably a lot more going on than what we know right now.
I would expect to hear a lot more about the relationship between the plaintiff and defendant.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
justok (profile), 17 Apr 2014 @ 7:43pm

Just
Just sue it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lurker Keith, 17 Apr 2014 @ 8:56pm

Re: Nike lawyers
Nike would not be suing unless...

Nike is the Defendant. Nike isn't the one suing, they're the one being sued for using someone else's Trademark, knowingly, w/o permission.

This is an open & shut case, the question is how much will Nike be paying.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rapnel (profile), 17 Apr 2014 @ 8:58pm

Re: Nike lawyers
Swoosh.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
AMusingFool (profile), 17 Apr 2014 @ 9:18pm

Let's hope the coda isn't:
Victory, thy name is Nike.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
art guerrilla (profile), 18 Apr 2014 @ 5:42am

Re: Re: Nike lawyers
the proper term, is 'swooshtika'...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
art guerrilla (profile), 18 Apr 2014 @ 5:43am

Re: Let's hope the coda isn't:
on a wing and a payer (sic) ? ? ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Apr 2014 @ 6:02am

Re: Re: Nike lawyers
Trademark infringement often results little to no financial gain for the plaintiff. The primary goal of trademark suits is to stop the infringement. Where financial penalties can get significant is when someone loses a trademark case and then continues to infringe. Courts take a very dim view of such things, and penalize accordingly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lurker Keith, 18 Apr 2014 @ 7:52am

Re: Re: Re: Nike lawyers
Uh, that'd be why there's a question about how much they'll be paying... DUH!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sambo, 20 Apr 2014 @ 2:22pm

Not sure why anybody finds this in the least bit surprising.

Blatant trademark ripping is their heritage.

Even the swoosh is not original anyway.

Were the first NIKE's not just onitsuka tiger's imported from Japan with parts of the labels peeled off to make the swoosh anyway?
[ link to this | view in thread ]