Fleet Feet sues Nike

I've seen the national sales figures and to be honest I don't know how the hell saucony has been #3. Where I work we have a massive amount of selection of brands and styles and saucony does not sell when compared to other major brands. Even compared to Nike most of the similar styles will not prevail for example if you brought out a Pegasus and a Ride most customers will leave with the Pegasus. Also the nationwide figures are for the early quarter and Brooks has had massive issues with distribution in the last 6 months or so, it'd be interesting to see how the rankings changed.

LoneStarXC wrote:

Can Fleet Feet really afford to take on Nike? I get why they’re suing Nike, but considering how many lawyers Nike has, and the fact that Nike is a MUCH larger company, I don’t see how Fleet Feet could win this. ?‍♀️

Nah, that’s not really how this will go down. Both companies will probably hire outside counsel for this, so it’s not like FF’s “small-time in-house lawyers” are going up against Nike direct. Hiring consultants to assess damages will cost FF and Nike each about a million (give or take), and probably 1.5 million for the law firm on retainer over the next year or so. So not insurmountably expensive for FF, but you have to wonder if the court will really find the trademark to be worth that much (since nobody here has apparently heard the expression, how much can it really matter to consumers?).

Out of control wrote:

Jerry Maguire wrote:

All nike has to do is pull all their stuff from the shelves from fleet feet and they are toast.

Nike make's up the majority of fleet feet apparel sales.

First that's not true. Maybe at the one store you are talking about but Fleet Feet nationally will not be toast if Nike pulls. Second what's the point in having a trademark if anyone can just go ahead and use whatever. What if Fleet Feet starting saying "Just Do It" should Nike just say OK no problem?

Maybe if Nike pulled their merch from foot locker the store would be toast but not fleet feet or any running shoe store. Most people I know who run do not even wear nike just me. I only wear Nike cause the two schools I ran for had a nike contract otherwise I would still be wearing asics. Most of my teammates didnt even wear the nikes to practice. Just my perspective though.

Gravyyy wrote:

Nike should be able to do whatever they want considering their contributions to the sport.

Like supporting Salazar?

This is funny because I highly doubt anyone knew that Fleet Feet owned the phrase "Running Changes Everything"

Everyone who's debating about whether Fleet Feet carries Nike gear or not or how much Nike they sell, guess what, different Fleet Feet stores are different. The FF closest to me is >50% Nike. The next-closest FF store has no Nike. So I don't have to go very far from my house to prove that some FF's are mostly Nike and some FF's have no Nike at all.

Also, as a regular FF customer over the last 5 years, I had no idea that they had this slogan. So maybe they have a legal right or even obligation to defend their trademark, but personally I think it's silly and pointless. It's a very generic phrase that no one at all outside of FF's marketing department would associate with FF.

But the point about trademarks is dead on, it's why you will occasionally read a piece about Disney suing some mom & pop place for making Disney cakes or whatever. The law demands that they do that. If they just let anyone use the cartoon characters then eventually they become public domain.

I had a buddy with a shirt business. Not even a mom and pop shop, just a pop. Once he made up like 6 shirts, with Disney characters on them, for some guys going to Vegas for a pool tournament. One of the guys mentioned to my buddy that someone approached them and asked about the shirts and where they got them. Sure enough a cease and desist letter from Uncle Walt showed up in my buddy's mail. They care.

Boy scouts!! wrote:

https://sgbonline.com/fleet-feet-sues-nike-over-sport-changes-everything-slogan/

My take: Nike clearly used the trademarked phrase " Running Changes Everything." In the eyes of the law, they are in the wrong. However, Fleet Feet is being a little boy scoutish about this.

This Quote says it all.

Fleet Feet is seeking to stop the alleged infringement and recover damages “to compensate Fleet Feet for the injuries and damages it has suffered as a result of Nike’s willfully wrongful conduct.”

Nobody outside of Fleet Feet even cares or knows about "Running Changes Everything" from a consumer standpoint. Yes Nike is in the wrong and shoes be penalized. But cmon Fleet Feet get over yourself s.

Wasn't it Cyndi Lauper who once said, .....I mean sang....."It's all in the past now, Money Changes Everything!".......

Gravyyy wrote:

Nike should be able to do whatever they want considering their contributions to the sport.

Their contributions to sports consist of primarily drugs, cheating, and controversy.

Drugs: with one exception (Ben Johnson) and (according to a total of one person who lost to him in a big race) possibly Waldemar Cierpinski, PEDs=Nike. Have you ever seen a picture of Barry Bonds or Lance Armstrong when they were active in sports wearing anythin else? No, you haven't.

Cheating: Who won a WC Gold Medal in London by stepping on the inside of the track on a curve? Was he trying to take a shortcut, or was it accidental? Who cares, he broke a rule, although I prefer the blunt and succinct term 'cheated'. Funny that another shortcutter (American, also Nike-shod) got DQd during the same program, but not Mo, one of Nike's biggest poster boys. USATF letting in Nike athletes who hadn't met 10km standard (but not Diego Estrada, I know some of you remember that) and Salazar ducking into the official's tent at Indoor Nationals confirms that those who cheat prefer Nike. Or more significantly, Nike prefers those who cheat.

Controversy: Name anyone with a Y chromosome competing in a women's event. Name the shoe they wore. Breaking 2. Controversial, check. Nike, check.

What do you mean 'should be able to do whatever they want'? They already do whatever they want, the law (such as IP law in the case in question) notwithstanding.

LoneStarXC wrote:

Can Fleet Feet really afford to take on Nike? I get why they’re suing Nike, but considering how many lawyers Nike has, and the fact that Nike is a MUCH larger company, I don’t see how Fleet Feet could win this. ?‍♀️

That's not how litigation works. You don't just "throw lawyers at a case" and win it. Resources can help at the margins, but the actual merits of your case are far more important than the number and quality of lawyers you have. Sure, private individuals and tiny businesses can quickly get crushed by litigation costs, but once you have enough resources to litigate competently, extra resources don't do that much for you. Fleet Feet is definitely big enough to hire competent outside counsel. And many of these cases are litigated on a contingency fee basis, anyway.

glaukos wrote:

Everyone who's debating about whether Fleet Feet carries Nike gear or not or how much Nike they sell, guess what, different Fleet Feet stores are different. The FF closest to me is >50% Nike. The next-closest FF store has no Nike. So I don't have to go very far from my house to prove that some FF's are mostly Nike and some FF's have no Nike at all.

Also, as a regular FF customer over the last 5 years, I had no idea that they had this slogan. So maybe they have a legal right or even obligation to defend their trademark, but personally I think it's silly and pointless. It's a very generic phrase that no one at all outside of FF's marketing department would associate with FF.

^This^

Fleet Feet is a franchise. Each market has different contracts and deals with each supplier (ASICS, adidas, Nike, Saucony, Brooks, etc.). Some are too small or too new to get a contract with Nike as their contract requirements for specialty running are prohibitive for new/small stores.

If you walk into a Fleet Feet in Chicago, you may think you're walking into a Nike store as they sell more Nike shoes and apparel than any other FF in the country.

If you walk into a Fleet Feet in Rochester, it will be a different experience.

Across the board: yes, Fleet Feet would hurt if Nike pulled their products from their shelves. As much as Fleet Feet is trying to make moves with their FitID, Karhu/On/Diadora deals, and their partnership with Brooks, they would still be hurting...although some franchises more than others.

My running shorts are Nike and I got them from FF in Polaris in July.

I think it’s already having an impact in Chicago. Fleet Feet was late to get Nike’s Shield shoes (compared to Heartbreak) and their Chicago Marathon gear was both inferior in quantity and selection compared to last year and compared to Heartbreak. Hard to say how much of the impact is due to the lawsuit vs Heartbreak opening up, but the old town fleet feet has had a very different vibe with regard to Nike for the last month.

aoxomoxoa wrote:

^This^

Fleet Feet is a franchise. Each market has different contracts and deals with each supplier (ASICS, adidas, Nike, Saucony, Brooks, etc.). Some are too small or too new to get a contract with Nike as their contract requirements for specialty running are prohibitive for new/small stores.

If you walk into a Fleet Feet in Chicago, you may think you're walking into a Nike store as they sell more Nike shoes and apparel than any other FF in the country.

If you walk into a Fleet Feet in Rochester, it will be a different experience.

Across the board: yes, Fleet Feet would hurt if Nike pulled their products from their shelves. As much as Fleet Feet is trying to make moves with their FitID, Karhu/On/Diadora deals, and their partnership with Brooks, they would still be hurting...although some franchises more than others.

cindy lauper should sue them both

As cool as the Nike Shield collection is, they aren't really a blockbuster especially for the typical Fleet Feet costumer.

I was at Heartbreak Hill on the Thursday before the Chicago Marathon chatting with the manager for about 30-60 minutes and I saw one person shopping the entire time, 3 days before the biggest race in the city. Fleet Feet mentioned they basically sold out of stuff other than XL sizes in first few days having the gear. Fleet Feet also has the choice to order a larger variety of marathon gear but order based on past sales and experience.

Looks like Fleet Feet won this battle...

https://www.law360.com/amp/articles/1224517

It’s good to know that money can’t buy everything.

I see more Nike gear in a Goodwill than I see at a Fleet Feet.

Where it's worth.......... wrote:

I see more Nike gear in a Goodwill than I see at a Fleet Feet.

There is more Nike gear at Goodwill worldwide than run specialty stores worldwide. Too bad Nike does shyt like this along with treating other independent retailers like poop. They're not good business parters and only choose to partner with the "edgy" stores that really are not making a profit.