Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 18,800+ case briefs...

Nike, Inc. v. McCarthy

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
379 F.3d 576 (9th Cir. 2004)


Eugene McCarthy (defendant) began working for Nike, Inc. (plaintiff) in 1993. In 1997, Nike promoted McCarthy to regional footwear sales manager. McCarthy signed a noncompete agreement, which provided that during McCarthy’s employment with Nike and for one year after his employment terminated, McCarthy could not directly or indirectly work for any athletic-footwear, athletic-apparel, or sports-equipment-and-accessories business anywhere in the world, or with any other business that directly competed with Nike. In 1999, Nike promoted McCarthy to sales director for Nike’s Brand Jordan division. As sales director, McCarthy learned confidential information about Nike’s product development, including new-product launch dates through the spring of 2004 and Nike’s future sales orders and strategic sales plans. In June 2003, McCarthy resigned from Nike. One month later, he began working at Reebok as vice president of U.S. footwear sales and merchandising. In that role, McCarthy was responsible for developing sales strategies for Reebok products. Nike sued McCarthy for breach of contract in Oregon state court and requested a declaratory judgment that McCarthy had violated his noncompete agreement. McCarthy removed the action to federal district court, and Nike moved in that court for a preliminary injunction. At a hearing on the motion, a Nike executive testified that if a company knew about its competitor’s launch dates, the company could schedule its own product launches to interfere with its competitor’s sales. McCarthy did not dispute that testimony. The district court granted Nike’s motion and entered an injunction prohibiting McCarthy from engaging in any athletic-footwear or athletic-apparel business or any other business in direct competition with Nike through August 25, 2004. McCarthy appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Fisher, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 498,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 498,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 18,800 briefs, keyed to 985 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial