You can read about the circumstances of this case in one of our previous posts: https://t.me/internationalsportslaw/161 (only in Russian).
Kawhi Leonard is closely identified with the Klaw logo. When you see the logo, you think of him. But as the Los Angeles Clippers star learned on the 22nd of April, the logo being about Leonard doesn’t make him its owner. According to a new ruling by a federal judge, the logo belongs to Nike.
Nike stressed that Leonard has admitted that Nike played an instrumental role in transforming his concept into a separate and marketable property. In 2014, Leonard was interviewed for the Nice Kicks story titled “The Oral History of Kawhi Leonard’s “Klaw” Logo.” The story quotes him as follows:
I came up with the idea of incorporating my initials in this logo. 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.
With logos, the visual test is important. Here are two Klaw logos:
The two logos are clearly similar in some ways. Both share the design of a hand, feature a similar position of a hand, and both refer to the letters “KL” and the number “2”. Those points help Leonard argue that Nike’s logo is merely derivative of his design. Yet the logos are unalike for several reasons, particularly with respect to the size and angle of the fingers, overall styles and how the two logos depict “KL” and “2”. Those differences advance Nike’s assertion that the logos are meaningfully different.
The two lawsuits were originally heard in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California but, at the behest of Nike last October, the litigation was moved to the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. U.S. District Judge Michael Mosman has presided over the case in Oregon. On Wednesday he dismissed Leonard’s claims with prejudice (meaning on the merits) and granted a motion confirming Nike’s ownership of the design.
The ruling, which is a victory for Nike’s attorneys from the law firms DLA Piper and Stoel Rives, was made “from the bench.” This refers to Judge Mosman verbally communicating his ruling after both sides’ attorneys had presented oral arguments during a hearing. The hearing took place over the phone, rather than in person (due to the coronavirus disease pandemic, many hearings for civil matters are being conducted by phone). Maxine Bernstein of The Oregonian reports on the phone call and Judge Mosman’s statements during it. Bernstein quotes the judge as distinguishing the two logos as independent pieces of intellectual property. Likewise, the judge regards Nike’s design as “new and significantly different” from the sketch Leonard drew as a college student. Judge Mosman’s ruling also indicates that he will separately issue a written opinion regarding Nike’s claims against Leonard.
Leonard can appeal a defeat at the district court level to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Leonard’s attorney, Peter Ginsberg, told Bernstein that he is “considering our options to protect Kawhi’s interests.'' In the meantime, the logo is a Nike property. Leonard therefore can’t license it to New Balance and other companies with whom he has signed endorsement deals. That doesn’t bar those companies from developing their own properties and designs with Leonard. To that point, New Balance markets Leonard-related apparel and footwear products that don’t show a claw. Those companies could conceivably offer to buy or license the Klaw logo from Nike; whether Nike would make a deal with a competitor is less clear.
Source: https://www.si.com/