Nike Drafts DLA Piper in Pushback Against Kawhi Leonard Logo Lawsuit
"Leonard fraudulently claimed to be the author and sole owner of the Claw Design, with knowledge that Nike's designers, and not Leonard, authored the Claw Design, and with specific intent to deceive the U.S. Copyright Office."
July 18, 2019 at 06:05 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
Nike Inc. has drafted a team of litigators from DLA Piper to respond to NBA star Kawhi Leonard's claims that he should hold rights to the so-called Claw logo developed back when he was under contract with the shoe company.
Leonard's lawyers at Sullivan & Worcester and Duckor Spradling Metzger & Wynne sued Nike in June while Leonard was in the midst of leading the Toronto Raptors past the Golden State Warriors in the NBA Finals. He has since signed to play next season with the Los Angeles Clippers.
Leonard's lawsuit claims that Nike took a design that he authored—which highlights his notably large hands, his jersey number 2, and his initials 'K.L.'—and then filed an application at the United States Copyright Office without his knowledge or consent. Leonard's suit seeks a declaratory judgment finding that he is the sole author of the logo and that any future use of the logo by him or his current business partners won't infringe upon Nike's rights.
But Nike's DLA lawyers pushed back in court filings Wednesday, claiming that they hold valid rights to the logo. They claim Leonard, not the company, misled the Copyright Office about the logo's origins when he filed an application of his own in June. The DLA lawyers contend the company's professional designers made significant changes to the draft logo that Leonard submitted to them. They included side-by-side images of the sketch that Leonard gave the company, and the final logo that Nike designers created which eliminated the number 2 from the logo. The Nike version of the log was used on Leonard's shoes when he was under contract with the company and submitted to the Copyright Office by both parties.
Nike also points to an October 2014 interview with sneaker blog nicekicks.com quoting Leonard saying: “I drew up the rough draft, sent it over and they (Jordan Brand) made it perfect…I give the Jordan Brand team all the credit because I'm no artist at all…They refined it and made it look better than I thought it would ever be, and I'm extremely happy with the final version.”
Nike's legal team claims the NBA player improperly filed his trademark application to use the mark on items such as hats, shirts, jackets and pants.
“In his application for the Leonard Registration, Leonard fraudulently claimed to be the author and sole owner of the Claw Design, with knowledge that Nike's designers, and not Leonard, authored the Claw Design, and with specific intent to deceive the U.S. Copyright Office into granting the Leonard Registration to the detriment and prejudice of NIKE, as the true and exclusive owner of the Claw Design,” the DLA lawyers wrote.
Nike's team includes Stanley Panikowski in the firm's San Diego office and Tamar Duvdevani and Matthew Ganas in New York.
Scott Metzger of Duckor Spradling did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment from Leonard's legal team.
Also on Wednesday, the DLA lawyers also filed a motion to change the venue of the case from U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California to the District of Oregon, citing a forum clause provision in Leonard's prior contract with the company.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLitigators of the (Past) Week: Tackling a $4.7 Billion Verdict Post-Trial for the NFL in 'Sunday Ticket' Antitrust Litigation
Take-Two's Pete Welch on 'Getting the Best Results While Getting in the Way the Least'
Litigators of the Week: Kirkland Beats Videogame Copyright Claim From Lebron James' Tattoo Artist
Trending Stories
- 1Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 2Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 3NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 4A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 5Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250