Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of Nike on its claim that it owned The Claw copyright. Although Leonard did not dispute that The Claw was made in connection with the contract, he claimed it was derivative of his drawing and ineligible for copyright protection. Nike’s Rule 12(c) motion further relied on a provision in its endorsement contract that stated “Nike shall exclusively own all rights, title and interest in and to any logos, trademarks, service marks, characters, personas, copyrights, shoe or other product designs, patents, trade secrets or other forms of intellectual property created by Nike (and/or its agents), consultant or athlete in connection with this contract.” Leonard claimed that his drawing, which was made before the endorsement deal was signed, was not made “in connection with” the endorsement contract. Nike’s motion argued that its design was “obviously distinct” from Leonard’s, and that Nike never claimed ownership of Leonard’s own drawing. In his complaint, and in response to Nike’s motion, Leonard alleged that because he drew a previous draft logo and shared it with Nike, he was the actual owner of the subsequent Claw Design. The focus of Nike’s motion was dismissal of Leonard’s copyright claims, and recognition that Nike owned the copyright to The Claw. of California, but Nike was successful in transferring the case to its backyard: the District of Oregon.Īfter the case was transferred to the District of Oregon, Nike answered, asserted counterclaims, and moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) for judgment on the pleadings.
Leonard’s claims were originally brought in the S.D. Intent on continuing to use The Claw as part of his personal brand with his new partner New Balance, Leonard sued Nike in 2019 seeking a declaration that he authored and owns the The Claw, and that Nike was neither the creator nor owner of the logo. Instead of re-signing with Nike, Leonard and his giant hands inked a new deal with New Balance. In late 2018, Nike’s endorsement contract with Leonard expired. Nike copyrighted The Claw design and listed itself as the author as an employer for hire, indicating that its employees-rather than Leonard-created the work.
The eventual “Claw Design” was created by Nike artists during the course of Leonard’s endorsement deal, but it shared similarities with a prior drawing Leonard created and provided to Nike.īoth drawings include the letters “K” and “L” as well as the number 2 (Leonard’s jersey number) on an outstretched hand. (Incidentally, Judge Mosman is the same judge who dismissed claims challenging Nike’s copyright ownership of the Jumpman logo in Rentmeester v.
#LOGOS NIKE FREE#
Nike, which signed Leonard to an endorsement deal in 2011, set out to immortalize Leonard’s iconic hands in a logo, just as it had done with Michael Jordan’s iconic free throw line dunk in the Jumpman logo.
Those powerful paws, reportedly as big as Wilt Chamberlain’s and measuring over 11 inches long, are credited as one of the reasons behind Leonard’s success as a basketball player. Leonard, who led the Toronto Raptors to its first NBA title last year, is nicknamed “The Claw” (or “The KLaw” – using Leonard’s initials) because of his enormous hands. Although no written order has been issued yet, the ruling reveals potential pitfalls facing athletes or celebrities attempting to build out brands with personalized logos or trademarks.
The Claw is a logo depicting Leonard’s initials “KL” and jersey number “2” in the palm of an outstretched hand. Mosman granted Nike’s motion dismissing NBA star Kawhi Leonard’s claims that he rightfully owned “The Claw” logo. In an oral ruling last month, Oregon District Court Judge Michael W.
0 kommentar(er)
