Nike, Inc. v. Rubber Manufacturers Association, Inc.
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
509 F. Supp. 919 (1981)
- Written by Meagan Messina, JD
Facts
In 1980, Nike, Inc. (Nike) (defendant) started marketing cleated sports shoes and entered into endorsement contracts with professional athletes to have the athletes wear Nike shoes with Nike’s distinctive “swoosh-stripe.” Brooks Shoe Manufacturing Co., Inc. (Brooks) (plaintiff) also entered into endorsement contracts with professional athletes. During the Super Bowl in 1980 and the baseball season of 1980, several athletes doctored Brooks’ shoes so the athletes could wear Brooks’ shoes emblazoned with the Nike swoosh. Brooks filed a counterclaim against Nike, seeking an injunction to enjoin Nike from allowing doctoring of shoes made by Brooks or other manufacturers and allowing athletes to wear non-Nike shoes emblazoned with the Nike swoosh. Brooks alleged that Nike violated the Clayton Act, Sherman Act, and Lanham Act in that allowing the Nike trademark to be placed on shoes of other manufacturers constituted a false designation of origin and false description and that Nike was attempting to monopolize the running-shoe market.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Bonsal, 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. 46,400 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.
