Nike Sues Guy Who Ordered Single Pair Of Counterfeit Sneakers Over The Internet

from the nike-picks-up-the-RIAA-strategy dept

Warning: you might not want to ever buy Nike shoes again. If you accidentally buy a counterfeit pair of shoes, Nike might sue you. Via Glyn Moody, we learn that Nike chose to sue a guy who ordered a single pair of trainers online, believing they were legitimate Nike shoes. The shoes were seized at the UK border as counterfeits. Nike could have gone after the actual counterfeiters. Or it could have (perhaps more questionably) gone after some other third parties, such as the retailers who sold the shoes. Instead, it chose option 3 and sued the buyers directly. Most of the suits were settled (or, apparently, ignored).

However, one customer, a Mr. E. Bateman, thought this was ridiculous, and fought it. He pointed out that he simply thought he was buying legitimate Nikes, and it seems rather ridiculous to then be sued for it. The judge noted that, under UK trademark law, the buyer's intent is absolutely meaningless:

"Whether or not the defendant believed the goods were authentic is irrelevant to the question of trade mark infringement. Whether the goods are infringing goods or counterfeit goods is an objective question. The Defendant's state of mind does not matter. Equally the Defendant's state of mind is irrelavant to the question of importation."

In other words, don't ever buy Nike shoes, or you might get sued.

Of course, all this makes you wonder: what the hell was Nike thinking? We've seen how suing customers backfired badly for the RIAA and others, but this goes even beyond that. Here's a case where a guy appeared to believe he had just bought legitimate shoes, and Nike's response is to sue him, take him to court, and then win its lawsuit against him. The judge did point out that he "questioned whether the sledge hammer of these proceedings is necessary in order to crack this nut of this magnitude," and even then Nike pushed forward, claiming that the companies has "no realistic alternative to enforcing their rights this way."

Um. Sure they do: the alternative is not suing their customer. That said, at least the judge did not make Mr. Bateman pay any fine or award to Nike (even though Nike did ask for money), but rather, he has to promise not to infringe in the future, allow the shoes (still held by UK customs) to be destroyed and provide the details of where he bought the shoes. Of course, the only way he can make sure not to infringe in such a manner again is to never buy Nike shoes again, since he has no way of knowing beforehand if they're infringing or not. Nice work Nike.

Filed Under: sneakers, suing customers, trademark, trainers, uk
Companies: nike

It's Sad That It's Newsworthy When An Entertainment Industry Exec Decides Not To Sue Customers

from the sign-of-the-times dept

In noting that the Entertainment Software Association (the ESA) had hired the RIAA's VP in charge of its litigation strategy, we wondered if the ESA was going to ramp up lawsuits against customers. After all, over in the UK, there's been news about law firms suing hundreds for file sharing games. But, in the comments, someone pointed to an interview with the boss of EA Sports, Peter Moore, saying that he doesn't think it's a good idea to follow the RIAA's litigious path:

"I'm not a huge fan of trying to punish your consumer... I think there are better solutions than chasing people for money. I'm not sure what they are, other than to build game experiences that make it more difficult for there to be any value in pirating games."

Of course, he also does make some other comments that suggest he very much views it as an "us vs. them" sort of thing, rather than looking for potential win-win solutions:

"We absolutely should crack down on piracy. People put a lot of blood, sweat and tears into their content and deserve to get paid for it. It's absolutely wrong, it is stealing."

That's a bit of a mixed message, but at least it sounds as though EA is not anxious to sue its customers -- and, of course, EA is a major member of ESA, so hopefully it can help keep ESA away from going down this path as well. The next step would be starting to figure out ways to set up better business models that use so-called "piracy" to the company's advantage. Those will come eventually. In the meantime, though, how sad is it when it's newsworthy that an entertainment industry exec says he doesn't think suing customers is a good idea?

Filed Under: esa, peter moore, piracy, suing customers
Companies: ea, esa