Nike, Inc. v. Nikepal International, Inc.
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
84 U.S.P.Q.2d 1820 (2007)
- Written by Abby Roughton, JD
Facts
Nike, Inc. (plaintiff), the world’s largest athletic-footwear-and-apparel company, used the mark NIKE. By 1997, Nike had U.S. sales of over $5 billion and had spent over $1.5 billion to promote the NIKE mark in the U.S. through advertising and endorsements. The NIKE mark was therefore considered a top U.S. brand. In 1998, Palminder Sandhu incorporated Nikepal International, Inc. (Nikepal) (defendant) and began using the NIKEPAL mark for a laboratory-products-distribution business. The “Nike” portion of the NIKEPAL mark was pronounced like the NIKE mark. Sandhu admittedly knew of Nike’s mark but asserted that he created the name Nikepal by randomly selecting Nike from the dictionary and adding the first three letters of his name. A survey revealed that 87 percent of Nikepal’s potential laboratory customers associated NIKEPAL with NIKE. After the U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) allowed Sandhu to register the NIKEPAL mark, Nike brought an action in federal district court seeking injunctive relief and reversal of the TTAB ruling.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Burrell, Jr., J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.
