Popular Topics
All Topics
- .Com Disclosure Guide
- 140conf
- 140conf Long Island
- 140confLI
- 47 USC 230
- AAA
- ACI 2017
- Ads
- Advance Registration
- Advertising
- Advertising Agencies
- Advertising Agency
- Advertising Disclosure
- Advertising Industry
- Advertising Injury
- Advertising Law
- Advertising Practice
- advertising self-regulation
- Advertising Self-Regulatory Council
- Advertising Software
- Advertising, Marketing & Promotions News
- Advertorials
- Advisory
- Affiliate Marketing
- Affiliate Program
- All Natural
- Amazon
- Amazon Silk
- Amazon Tax
- Amazon.com
- Amendments
- American Advertising Federation
- American Bar Association
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Android
- Annual Audit
- Annual Fee
- anti-fraud
- App Developers
- Apple
- Apps
- Arbitration
- Arbitration Clause
- Arbitration Rules
- Ashley Madison
- ASRC
- AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion
- ATDS
- Attorney
- Attorney General
- Audio Beacons
- Augme
- Auto-dial
- Automatic Renewal
- Automobiles
- BBB AdTruth
- Bead Art Playsets
- Behavioral Advertising
- Best Lawyers
- Blackberry
- Bloggers and Influencers
- Bloomberg BNA
- Brain Training
- Branding
- Brands
- Breach
- Burden of Proof
- Business Law
- Business, Marketing & Promotions News
- Buyers
- California
- California Auto-Renewal Task Force
- California Consumer Privacy Act
- California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control
- California’s Automatic Renewal Law
- California’s Unfair Competition Law
- Campaigns
- CAN-Spam
- Cancer Fund of America
- cannabis
- Caribbean & Latin American Corporate Counsel Summit 2017
- CARU's Guidelines
- CAS
- Cash prizes
- CASL
- CBBB
- CBD
- Celebrity Images
- Cell Phone Applications
- Cell phones
- CFPB
- CGMP
- Chambers 2017 USA Guide
- Chantal Tode
- Charge Pop-ups
- Charity Fundraising
- Charity Regulators
- Children's Advertising
- Children's Advertising Review Unit (CARU)
- children's marketing
- Children's Privacy
- Civil Penalties
- Class Action
- Class Action Lawsuit
- Class Certification
- Clean Diesel
- Cognitive Claims
- Colorado
- Commerce Department
- Commercial Advertising
- Commercial Electronic Mail Act (CEMA)
- Communications Decency Act
- compliance
- conference
- Consumer Complaints
- Consumer Complaints List
- Consumer Contracts
- Consumer Data
- Consumer Fraud
- consumer health guidelines
- Consumer Privacy
- Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights
- Consumer Protection
- consumer protection laws
- Consumer Sentinel Network
- Contract
- COPPA
- COPPA FTC Olshan Advertising Marketing Promotions Privacy
- Copyright Act
- Copyright Alert System
- Copyright Infringement
- Copyright Infringement Abroad
- Copyright, Trademark and Other Intellectual Property
- Corporate Law
- Council of Better Business Bureau
- Counterclaims
- Court Decisions
- COVID-19
- Cramming
- Credit Card Payment Surcharges
- Crowdfunding
- Cryptocurrency
- cybersecurity
- D.C. Circuit Court
- Daily Fantasy Sports Contests
- data breach
- Data Broker
- Data Collection Practices
- Data Protection
- Data Security
- Data Transfers
- Debt collectors
- Deceptive Advertising
- Deceptive Pricing
- Deceptive Tracking
- Department of Commerce
- Department of Labor
- Department of Labor (DOL)
- dietary supplements
- Digital
- Digital Advertising
- Digital Media
- Direct listings
- Direct Marketers
- Direct marketing programs
- Direct response marketing
- DirectTV
- Disclosure
- Disclosure Obligations
- Disclosure Rules
- Discounts
- DMA
- DMCA
- Do Not Call
- Do Not Track
- DOJ
- Domain Extensions
- Domino's Pizza
- Dot Com Disclosures
- DPPA
- DraftKings
- Drawing By Chance
- Elder Abuse Prevention and Prosecution Act
- Emissions Testing
- endorsement
- Enforcement Action
- Enhanced Ads
- Entry Fee
- EPA
- Epic
- Ethics
- EU Commission
- EU-US Privacy Shield
- European Commission
- European Court of Justice (ECJ)
- European Union
- European Union registration holders
- European Union Trademark
- Exchange listing
- Ezor
- Factory outlets
- Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA)
- Fair Debt Collections Practices Act
- Fair Information Practice Principles
- Fair Labor Standards Act
- False Advertising
- FanDuel
- Fantasy Contests Act
- Fantasy Sports
- Fantasy Sports Operators
- Farm Bill
- fashion law
- Fax broadcsters
- Faxes
- FCC
- FCC Developments
- FCC Solicited Fax Rule
- FDA
- FDCA
- Federal Laws & Regulations
- Federal Overtime Regulations
- Federal Trade Commission
- Final Rule
- FIPP
- First Amendment
- Fit Products
- Fit Tea
- Florida
- Force Majeure
- Fraud
- FTC
- FTC Act
- FTC Guidance
- FTC restitution
- FTC’s Jewelry Guides
- Gambling
- Gambling Laws
- Game Promotions
- GDPR
- General Data Protection Regulation
- Geo-targeted Advertising
- Georgia
- Guide
- HARO
- Health-related Mobile Apps
- Health-related Products
- Healthy
- HIPAA
- History Sniffing
- HitPath
- Homestead Laws
- HTC
- Hurricane
- IAB
- ICANN
- illegal content
- Illegal Gambling
- Illinois
- IMDb
- Influencer Marketing
- Injury in Fact
- Insider Trading
- Inspection Resources
- Insurance Company
- Insurance Coverage
- INTA
- Intellectual Property
- Internet and Privacy Law
- iOS
- Iowa
- IP Awareness Assessment Tool
- IPOs
- Jeff Pulver
- Jewelry
- JOLT
- Jurisdiction
- Kindle Fire
- Lanham Act
- Law
- Law Enforcement
- Law Review Article
- law school
- Laws
- Leading Lawyers
- Lee Bogner
- Legal 500 United States 2017
- Legislation
- letter of consent
- Licensing Fees
- Lily Robotics
- List managers
- Litigation
- Lumosity
- Lumosity ads
- Lumosity games
- Lustigman Firm
- Luxury Daily
- made in the usa
- Magazine publishers
- Mail Order Sales Rule
- Manufacture
- Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price (“MSRP”)
- Marden-Kane
- Marketing
- Marketing & Promotions News
- Marketing and Advertising Law
- Marketshare
- Mass texts
- Material Disclosures
- Mc Donalds
- Media and Entertainment
- Media Companies
- Microsoft
- MLM
- Mobile Financial Services
- Mobile In-app Charges
- Mobile Marketer
- Mobile Marketing
- Mobile Payment Systems
- Mobile Payment Systems Security Programs
- Mortgage Bankers Association
- Mortgage Investors
- NAD
- NARB
- Native Advertising
- Native Advertising Guidelines
- Nautilus, Inc.
- Network Advertising Initiative
- New Jersey
- New Jersey Supreme Court
- New York
- New York Law Journal
- New York SHIELD Act
- Nomi
- Non-commerical Calls
- Non-profit Organization
- Notice
- Nutrient Content
- NY Attorney General
- objective consumer harm
- Off-label Prescriptions
- Office for Civil Rights (OCR)
- Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)
- Office of National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC)
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- Olshan
- Olshan Grundman
- Olshan News
- Online Advertising
- Online Apps
- Online Cancellation
- Online Contracts
- Online Discount Pricing
- Online Entertainment Co
- Online Retail
- Online Reviews
- Online Tracking
- Online travel agencies
- Overstock
- Paid Promotions
- pandemic
- Patents
- Payment Methods
- Penny Auction
- Performance Marketing
- Personally Identifiable Information
- Pet Care
- Peter Shankman
- Pharmaceutical Advertising
- Pharmaceutical Manufacturers
- pre-orders
- Pre-recorded Message
- Price Match Guarantee
- Pricing Guides
- Pricing Practices
- Privacy
- Privacy Act
- Privacy Policy
- Privacy Practices
- Privacy Shield
- Pro-Consumer
- Products
- Professional Association for Customer Engagement (PACE)
- Promotion
- Proposed Rulemaking
- Public Database
- Publication of Age
- Publisher Magazine
- Q&A
- RCT Requirements
- Real Estate
- Real-estate-advertising
- Reasonableness
- Registration
- Regulations
- Resale Value
- Restrictions
- retail
- Retail Stores
- Revisions
- Risk
- Robocalls
- Roundtable
- Safe Harbor
- Sales
- Sales Practices
- Sales Tax
- Sandy
- SDNY
- SEC
- SEC disclosure
- SEC disgorgement
- SEC Form 10
- Section 17600 of the Business and Professions Code
- Securities Act of 1933
- Securities Act Section 17(b)
- Securities Exchange Act of 1934
- self-regulatory
- Sellers
- Service-Mark Infringement
- Settlement
- Sex Offenders
- SilverPush Apps
- Skill Contest
- Skin Care Products
- Smartphone
- Social Media
- Social Media Accounts
- Social Media Marketing
- Social Media Posts
- Social Networking
- South Dakota
- Southern District of Florida
- Spam
- Special Olympics
- Spotify
- State Law
- Statute of Limitations
- Subscribers' privacy rights
- Subscription Arrangements
- substantiation rules
- Super Lawyers
- Supreme Court
- Sweeping
- Sweepstakes Law
- Sweeptstakes Contest
- symposium
- Tasty
- TCCWNA
- TCPA
- TCPA Appeals
- TCPA Claim
- TCPA Class Actions
- TCPA Lawsuit
- TCPA Liability
- TCPA Regulation
- TCPA Ruling
- Tech Companies
- Tech Day New York 2017
- Telecom Law
- Telemarketers
- Telemarketing
- Telemarketing Calls
- Telemarketing Law
- Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR)
- Telephone Consumer Act
- Terms & Conditions
- Text Message Ads
- Text Messages
- Text Messengers
- Textile Fiber Products Identification Act
- The 2017 ANA/BAA 39th Marketing Law Conference: Breakthrough: Legal Strategies for Dynamic Businesses
- The Americans with Disabilities Act
- The Electronic Retailing Self-Regulation Program
- The Kardashians
- The Pennsylvania Record
- Third Circuit Court
- Throttling
- Top Ten Complaints
- Trademark Clearinghouse
- Trademark Protection
- Trademark Rights
- Trademarks
- Transactions
- Transnational Criminal Organization (TCO
- Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty & Notice Act
- U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
- Unauthorized Data
- United Kingdom
- Unsolicited Advertisement
- Unsubscribe Act of 2019
- US Supreme Court
- Use Tax
- Velti
- Vermont
- Vermont House Bill 593
- Vicarious Liability
- Violations
- virtual reality
- Wal-Mart v. Dukes
- Warning Letter
- Washington D.C.
- Washington Law
- Washington’s Consumer Protection Act
- WBO
- Web Agreements
- Web Browsers
- webinar
- webOS
- Websites
- Western District of Washington
- White House
- World Boxing Organization
- World Trademark Review
Recent Posts
- Andrew Lustigman Quoted in Law360 on the FTC’s Ability to Seek Monetary Restitution
- Olshan Branding Management and Protection Attorneys Present Webinar on Marketing in the COVID-19 Era to the Bronx Third Avenue BID
- The Legal 500 Publishes “United States: Pharmaceutical Advertising” Q&A by Lustigman and Spina
- New York Enacts Comprehensive Automatic Renewal Law Modeled After California Law
- Olshan’s Advertising Practice Provides Pro Bono Support to COVID-19 and Racial Equality Fundraiser
- Law360 Publishes Article by Scott Shaffer on Recent TCPA Rulings that Benefit Companies Facing Robocall Claims
- Another Court of Appeals Rules Against the FTC on Disgorgement Issue
- Federal Trial Court Rules Against Enforcement of TCPA Claims from 2015-2020
- Webinar - Retail Marketing Compliance in Post-COVID Era
- Sweepstakes and Promotions During a Pandemic
Archives
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
Contact Us
212.451.2258
Kawhi Leonard Sues Nike Over the KL2 Logo
Kawhi Leonard, an NBA player who plays for the Toronto Raptors, sued Nike on June 3, 2019 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, Case 3:19-cv-01035-BAS-BGS, seeking declaratory relief of non-infringement and a declaration that he created and owns the KL2 logo: , that Nike did not author the logo and has no rights to the logo, that Nike is not entitled to copyright registration of the logo and that Nike defrauded the Copyright Office by intentionally misrepresenting the author of the logo.
According to the complaint, in 2011, just after being drafted to the NBA, Leonard created a logo that included elements that were meaningful and unique to him. He alleges that he traced his notably large hand, and inside the hand, drew a stylized version of his initials “KL” and the number “2”, which he had worn for much of his career.
In October 2011, Nike and Leonard entered into an endorsement deal. According to the complaint, at some point during the term of the agreement, Nike began discussions with Leonard about creating a unique logo to affix to merchandise to be sold under the Nike agreement. The complaint alleges that Nike provided ideas to modify the logo Leonard had created, but Leonard rejected those ideas for the most part. The complaint alleges that Leonard forwarded Nike the logo he had created and told Nike he would permit them to use the logo during the term of the agreement under his supervision and control. The complaint further alleges that in early Summer 2014, Nike provided a proposal to Leonard with modifications to the logo that he accepted and that Leonard “granted Nike permission to affix that logo, based upon [Leonard’s original logo], on Nike merchandise during the term of the Nike agreement.” The complaint further alleges that “Leonard’s representatives confirmed that Leonard continued to own the [Leonard Logo].” According to the complaint, “Leonard never transferred the rights to the Leonard Logo to Nike” and claims that communications between the parties evidence that Leonard permitted Nike to use the logo for the “specific purpose of effectuating the Nike Agreement for the term of the contract.”
Leonard alleges that he continued to use the logo on non-Nike goods, including apparel and merchandise used for basketball camps, appearances and charity events, even while Nike was affixing the logo to Nike merchandise. Leonard further alleges that “consistent with Nike’s position as a party without any ownership in the Leonard Logo, Nike refused to act several times when Leonard’s representatives learned that third-parties were using the Leonard Logo without authorization.”
Leonard alleges that unbeknownst to him and without consent, Nike obtained a copyright registration for the logo and falsely represented in the application that Nike had authored the logo. Leonard informed Nike of his intent to use the logo in connection with clothing lines, footwear and on other products, but Nike has objected to such uses.
After the copyright registration was issued, Leonard filed trademark applications in the U.S. for the logo and for “KL2” as a word mark. Two of those applications (both for apparel) have since registered.
Leonard is no longer affiliated with Nike and the complaint alleges that now Nike has claimed that it owns all intellectual property rights in the logo and demanded that Leonard cease and desist from his use of the logo. The complaint further alleges that Leonard intends to use the logo in connection with apparel and footwear that he is actively developing and intends to use the logo in connection with items he plans on distributing at sports camps and charity events, as well as other products to be determined. Interestingly, Leonard is now under contract with New Balance; thus, it is no surprise that Nike wants to prevent one of its competitors from using the logo. It will remain to be seen how Nike responds to the complaint and what the underlying agreements say as to the ownership of the logo.
TAKEAWAY: When parties enter into agreements with one another concerning intellectual property, whether the parties are companies, athletes, celebrities, designers, artists, developers, or others, they need to ensure that the contract explicitly states who will own the intellectual property rights and establishes each party’s rights to use the intellectual property during and after the expiration of the agreement. If certain intellectual property is just being licensed, that should be clearly set forth in the agreement. If the intellectual property is meant to be assigned, that should be clearly stated in the agreement as well. Working out ownership issues related to intellectual property at the outset will help to avoid controversies like the one that has been created between Leonard and Nike.