Court Sides With Nike And Dismisses Kawhi Leonard's Lawsuit Over 'Klaw' Logo

from the just-sue-it dept

Sometimes you turn out to be wrong. When we initially discussed Kawhi Leonard's lawsuit against Nike over the "Klaw" logo, I'd said I was interested to hear Nike's response. That was because my glance at Leonard's description of the history of the logo, one which he created in rough draft form when he was young to one which Nike used as inspiration for the eventual Nike Kawhi shoe logo, it sure seemed like Nike was being hypocritical. After all, Nike has a reputation for being extremely protective of its own intellectual property rights while being rather cavalier with those of others. As a reminder, Leonard created a logo that makes something of a "K" and "L" outlined via the tracing of his own hand. It sure seemed that if that all wasn't unique enough that Nike shouldn't be trying to trademark a version of the logo from under him, what could be?

Well, a U.S. District Judge in Oregon appears to disagree. And, given some of the side by side comparisons that Nike brought in its response... perhaps he has a point.

U.S. District Judge Michael W. Mosman ruled that the logo Nike designers helped create with Leonard marked an “independent piece of intellectual property’’ that was distinct from the original sketch Leonard initially conceived and shared with Nike.

“It’s not merely a derivative work of the sketch itself,’’ the judge ruled from the bench after an hour of oral argument held by phone as well as multiple briefs filed in the case. "I do find it to be new and significantly different from the design.''

Here is Leonard's rough draft side by side with the Nike logo.

Are they creatively different. Yes, I think that's fair. But the real problem here is that Leonard's entire use of the logo in commerce appears to be his deal with Nike.

Still, it sure feels like this logo, on a Nike shoe or not, is associated in the public's eye as much or more with Kawhi Leonard as Nike. Yeah, there are creative differences in the designs as drawn above. But one sure feels to me to be derivative of the other. And, yet, Leonard's lawyers argued the exact opposite.

One of Leonard’s lawyers, Mitchell C. Stein, urged the judge to view Leonard’s initial sketch and the final logo as "one and the same.''

Leonard isn’t claiming ownership of a derivative work. “We’re claiming ownership of the logo Leonard created,’’ Stein told the court.

"The KL, the No. 2 and the hand as expressed by Mr. Leonard in his sketch and as modified is the protectable element that appears in the Nike Klaw,'' Stein argued.

That... feels like a stretch. And the court apparently thought likewise, having sided with Nike and stating clearly that the two logos were definitely not "one and the same."

As stated on the record, I GRANT the motion with respect to Defendant Nike's ownership of the Claw Design. As a result, and because amendment of the complaint would be futile, I DISMISS Plaintiff's claims with prejudice.

And that should be the end of that. Frankly, I'm, again, a little surprised in this case, because it just... doesn't all feel as cut and dry as the ruling would suggest. Nike had an endorsement contract with Leonard, the clear author of an original logo for which Nike created an a derivative logo... and yet this all ends with Nike getting the all clear? The same as though it had created this logo whole cloth? And to what end? Leonard is no longer a Nike athlete. So Nike gets that logo and he has shoes elsewhere?

Like I said: messy.

Filed Under: kawhi leonard, logo, similarity, trademark
Companies: nike


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 4 May 2020 @ 8:23pm

    Is "inspiration" the same as "copying"? They sure seem to be the same in music. Why not here?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2. identicon
    Pixelation, 5 May 2020 @ 9:26am

    That's a handy little ruling for Nike.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3. icon
    Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 5 May 2020 @ 10:19am

    Looooove IP law

    "It's derivative and therefore protectable if it shares the faintest similarity of shape, form or colour, except where one could be easily mistaken for a direct evolution of the other when they are in fact completely different and not protected, except on a Tuesday where Mercury is in retrograde and the fourth aardvark from the left in the Beijing zoo is ill"

    Call me cynical, but IP law - trademark or copyright - seems to generally come down on the side of the bigger chequebook rather than any kind of consistent logic.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4. identicon
    JB, 5 May 2020 @ 6:16pm

    messy? try outright unjust

    nike: "we like our profits from your product line so even though our contract is up we are going to steal your logo and continue to profit on that product line"

    leonard: "how is that in any way fair now that I am selling my brand elsewhere?"

    courts: "carry on"

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Essential Reading
Techdirt Insider Chat
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.