I'd be curious as to whether they were legally permitted even to show athletes who were wearing other trademarks in their own ads anyway. This is probably a way of trying to keep them from even showing these athletes at all in their national uniforms.
It will be fun to start doctoring various of pics of Oiselle athletes wearing various other brands...idiots.
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".
Could be good "publicity". But it's infringement.... they violated Nike's exclusive rights... if they're small enough (which I am pretty sure they are at this point), they could go bankrupt if Nike/USATF decide to take action....
I don't think this was an intentional marketing ploy (if it was, it was STUPID). They will lose a HUGE amount of money...
DaveW wrote:
I guess lack of integrity is a standard that you don't apply to yourself.
The actions of the Oiselle CEO smells of desperation. Perhaps you should look at the reasons for your actions as well.
Her actions show how amateur she is. To be honest, I hadn't given much thought to Oiselle until yesterday when I heard about the little drama. My personal opinion in the matter is that Oiselle made themselves a big joke. The whining kid who would take their ball home if they didn't get picked first.
It also appears to be a brand that signs washed up athletes or athletes on the "B" level. I would be careful if I was the latter. If you make it big a company like Oiselle can only pay so much and if you act as unprofessional and childish as the CEO, you'll find yourself with that lower quality brand for your career and won't make the money you're worth.
Not sure what was a more unprofessional of pathetic move: the altering of the logos or posting the C&D.
Did anyone on this thread see the doctored image? If so, can you explain exactly which athlete(s) were shown, what changes were made and how the image was captioned?
If they violated Nike's exclusive rights, why is the USATF sending a letter from their lawyer? Shouldn't it come from Nike?
othergal wrote:
Could be good "publicity". But it's infringement.... they violated Nike's exclusive rights... if they're small enough (which I am pretty sure they are at this point), they could go bankrupt if Nike/USATF decide to take action....
I don't think this was an intentional marketing ploy (if it was, it was STUPID). They will lose a HUGE amount of money...
How pathetic to attempt to tear down the foundations that support T&F in this country just to try to sell clothes with the identity that we growl.
As imperfect as the current structure may be for some marginal runners, who would have thought that top runners were paid the kind of money they are today. Prefontaine would roll over in his grave.
My main issue is that I don't think the Oiselle CEO has any interest in expanding the sport, she is only interested in expanding her niche brand no matter what the consequences. And that smells of desperation.
Oh come on now, they're one in the same...for the next 26 years. Ughhhh.
rekrunner wrote:
If they violated Nike's exclusive rights, why is the USATF sending a letter from their lawyer? Shouldn't it come from Nike?
No, Nike pays the USATF the millions for the national team. It's the USATF job to protect those rights. Has to come from the USATF legal department. And in this case they're in the right.
If Nike got involved and Oiselle pissed off the wrong people, Nike would and could easily destroy the existence of Oiselle then they would be able to pay any athlete and they would go broke.
Because it's more than likely that in contract Nike's guidelines are that USATF must PROTECT Nike's logo and name. It's just as if I owned a home, and you decided to lease it. Then you sublet it without my knowledge and there are damages to my home... Who is liable? You.Who must do the dirty work? You.
Also, "artistic rendering" as Sally says in her tumblr.... that will not fly in any court.
Of course USATF acted quickly. It's black and white that Oiselle broke the rules and nobody can argue with that.
For Bumby and doping issues, there are people who will oppose the decisions and they don't want to deal with that.
Replace the word "niche" with "Nike", and couldn't then we say the same about Nike? How desperate were they to negotiate a 26 year exclusive deal?
DaveW wrote:
My main issue is that I don't think the Oiselle CEO has any interest in expanding the sport, she is only interested in expanding her niche brand no matter what the consequences. And that smells of desperation.
Dkny64 wrote:
Did anyone on this thread see the doctored image? If so, can you explain exactly which athlete(s) were shown, what changes were made and how the image was captioned?
I saw it. It was a photo of the four women after racing waving to the crowd. Except for the runner that is actually sponsored by Nike, they placed a logo of each runner's sponsor (Oiselle, Asics, and Brooks, I believe) on top of where the Nike logo would have been on their uniforms.
Who cares about the legal details. Leave that to the lawyers.
A very small women's wear company wants to pretend that they have some moral imperative when in fact all they are doing is trying to create a brand for their financial benefit with no interest or ability to expand the sport.
That is the story.
The USATF reprimand was two days after Lauren Fleshman's blog about USATF hiring a doper, i.e. it was retribution for the article.
Beyond that, I'm not aware that Oiselle has any agreement with Nike or USATF to promote the latter's wares on apparel worn by Oiselle sponsored athletes, and either do the athlete's. A stipulation to wear such advertisements in competition is NOT an agreement. I also doubt that Nike and USATF are paying Oiselle and/or the athletes for continued display of the logos.
I personally remove logos from shoes and other apparel that I own, cut them off, grind them up, and do anything else with them that I like.
The USATF and Nike are grossly overstepping their bounds and need to be set way back on their heels.
Not only did the lawyers get USATF/USTAF wrong, they got the name of the meet wrong too!
To be fair LR have been idiotically calling the World Relays a 'Championships' all week too so maybe they read Letsrun
I saw the image. It was great. It was a picture of the women's 4x1500 team. All of the Nike logos were replaced by each of their sponsor's logo.
The legal details do matter.. Oiselle could vanish. And if I were one of their athletes I would certainly want to know this kind of information. I'd be scared as hell.
And yes. The story you have observed is certainly correct. We need smarter brands and people in our sport...