I agree about the priorities. A long term exclusive deal with Nike doesn't seem to be in anyone's interest, but Nike's, and a few select athletes.Is an "Instagram" picture for promotional gain? In any case, if Oiselle wronged anyone, wouldn't it have been Nike? This is the part that surprises me, is that the USATF is doing Nike's dirty work.I'm not a lawyer, but I think a "trademarked term" only prevents you from passing off another marathon, even if it is in Boston, as the "Boston Marathon". If the clock caused no consumer confusion, i.e. getting runners to sign up for a competing marathon of inferior quality, there was likely no trademark infringement.
wejo wrote:
My beef is it shows where USATFs priorities lie. They can act very quickly when they need to. When it's about fair sport or doping they are slow to act and/or silent.
If you doctored photos, it would be fair use most likely.
Oiselle is doing it for commercial gain which is different.
They should have known better. If Skechers tried to photoshop a Skechers logo on Meb winning NYC they'd hear from Nike.
I did notice earlier this year, Nike had a swoosh on a "Countdown to the Boston Marathon" clock on Flotrack this year. I'm surprised that passed muster with the Nike legal department as "Boston Marathon" is a trademarked term. They could have gotten around it with a "Countdown to Boston" clock instead of "Boston Marathon" but this clearly said "Countdown to The Boston Marathon".