I follow oiselle on Instagram and saw the picture right after it was posted. It was the 4 relay women with their respective logos on their unis in place of the swoosh just like any other meet. I didn't think much of it when posted except it was nice to see some recognition for the companies they run for. They were photographed in Nike gear the rest of the weekend.
DaveW wrote:
Well if you qualify for the NBA or NFL you might see
http://www.nj.com/knicks/index.ssf/2014/03/nba_uniforms_could_feature_sponsors_logos_in_next_five_years.htmlI'm sure if you are running the Olympics, you will not be greatly burdened by Nike togs.
Remember 2014 and all that goes with it before it is too late. If you are still stuck on 1968, my condolences.
Oh, you know, I was only 4 yrs old in 1968 - I just thought it was a catchy chant for an action taking place in 1985 [which turned out to be WAY more confrontational than what I expected and led to the occupation of my dorm suite. The suite had started the academic year as the Russian House and ended the academic year as Revolution House. Silver lining - I got to do some press work that got me quoted in the Washington Post and the NY Times + gave me some interesting insights into how journalism works (or at least worked in those years.) Also got the chance to shake hands with Kwame Ture / Stokely Carmichael when he came up to the suite (I believe to get some food.) Seemed like a nice guy but I realize there are plenty of people who might reasonably disagree...]
But I digress. Ok, my point:
If you're an NBA or NFL athlete, yes, you're stuck with a certain sponsor's logo on your uni, but you've got other significant sources of income - your salary from your team to start, and if you're among, say, the top 100 players in the league, some amount of consumer products sponsorship income.
Compare to T&F. There's no equivalent of a team paying a base salary, and at this point I'm not sure there are any US T&F athletes making significant sponsorship income from consumer products companies that focus on something other than athletics. Which brings us back to Sally Bergesen's article and the doctored photo, which I read as making concrete some of the points she was making in the abstract in the article. Hence, my reading of her action as a form of civil disobedience.
I'll close with a revised version of another old chant [read "USATF Executive Council" for "Exec Council"]:
"Exec Council, You know, that Nike contract has to go!"
p.s. I think the TFAA should do a revised version of the old Nike "Revolution" commercial.
If IP isn't your field, then I dont think your too qualified to say the below, no? Nike paid a certain amount to partner with USATF, they will go after Oiselle to protect that...
800 dude wrote:
A Duck wrote:Listen, child, it is their duty to know the rules as sponsors.
The legal issue here has nothing to do with Nike's sponsorship deal. You can't imply that someone else's gear was produced by a different company.
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...
This isn't right. It has nothing to do with Nike's exclusive rights, and there's absolutely no chance in hell of the company going bankrupt. The damages from a doctored instagram photo would be miniscule. In fact, Oiselle probably broke the law on purpose to goad Nike into bullying them. Oiselle knows they don't have much liability exposure, and it makes Nike look bad. Smart move.
othergal wrote:
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.
Again. No. There is no way that Oiselle could vanish. Their liability exposure is tiny. Nike would be entitled only to the profits that Oiselle earned from their infringement. On an instagram photo, that's probably nothing. Especially when they added EACH athlete's sponsor, which really undercuts any implication that the uniforms were made by the respective companies. If Oiselle really wanted to litigate, they would have a shot at escaping liability entirely. Not that I'd recommend that course.
rekrunner wrote:Who was "damaged" here, Nike, or USATF? The USATF letter only said Nike was damaged -- if that were the case, shouldn't Nike be sending the letter? USATF only says that the "doctored" photos diminishes the value of the USATF's sponsorship or licensing relationships. Is that considered damage to the USATF? Is that something forbidden by unfair competition laws, false advertising laws, or the Lanham Act? Does Oiselle have any legal or contractual obligations to the USATF.
This is an interesting issue, but actually, I think under the Supreme Court's very recent Lexmark decision, USATF would probably have standing to protect Nike's trademarks.
rekrunner wrote:
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.
IP isn't my field, but I'm not aware of the Lanham Act applying when all someone does is blur out a logo. It doesn't imply that Nike wasn't the sponsor or producer of the uniforms; it just removes some evidence. If you can crop a picture so as to remove a swoosh, blurring it out isn't really that different. I'd be shocked if simply removing a swoosh could lead to liability. Though I don't think the argument is frivolous, which makes the threat of litigation very real.
This is a legal matter. It's a FIELD DAY for any lawyer.
othergal wrote:
This is a legal matter. It's a FIELD DAY for any lawyer.
You watch too much TV. Your Legal knowledge is low.
Right. Just watch how this unfolds...
Of course Oiselle was wrong as a matter of intellectual property law. Tsk, tsk.
Maybe Oiselle thought they could get away with a little ambush marketing because USATF is usually so incompetent. Unfortunately, they didn't reckon on the fact that sucking off Nike is right in USATF's wheelhouse.
P-Larson-shoe wrote:
JoeGarland wrote: "Nike, as noted, is a bully. Yet it's been good to track and field and running in the US. All we can do as athletes is not buy its products." End of what JoeGarland wrote
How is protecting their brand and investment being a bully? I'm as a lawyer you should know that a companies duty is to protect its brand and do it quickly. I'll buy Nike because unlike oiselle they are spending money supporting USA track .
Oiselle is the sneak by trying to reap the rewards without investing a thing.
Sure, USATF and Nike are entitled to protect their marks and send cease-and-desist letters asserting "consumer confusion". I was speaking about the history of the company.
Of course one could argue that since none of the athletes in the photo apparently actually run for Nike a picture of them with Nike logos could confuse consumers into thinking that they do.
800 dude wrote:
rekrunner wrote:Who was "damaged" here, Nike, or USATF? The USATF letter only said Nike was damaged -- if that were the case, shouldn't Nike be sending the letter? USATF only says that the "doctored" photos diminishes the value of the USATF's sponsorship or licensing relationships. Is that considered damage to the USATF? Is that something forbidden by unfair competition laws, false advertising laws, or the Lanham Act? Does Oiselle have any legal or contractual obligations to the USATF.This is an interesting issue, but actually, I think under the Supreme Court's very recent Lexmark decision, USATF would probably have standing to protect Nike's trademarks.
You're overthinking this - USATF is protecting USATF's rights, not Nike's. USATF has a right to license a company to advertise on US jerseys (and granted that license exclusively to Nike); Oiselle infringed on USATF's rights. If USATF had chosen not to license its jerseys to any company (i.e., if there were no company logos on the front), they could still send a cease and desist logo to a commercial company photoshopping a logo onto the jerseys.
Both Nike and USATF were damaged here.
The image is free speech, a news/editorial image, and not a commercial/trademark image. Thus Oiselle is not wrong. Plus there's no value involved since the image was provided by unpaid T&F officals, is not copyrighted, was released for public use, for FREE by the IAAF. Oiselle has no exposure.
How quickly Kara has forgotten that, if not for Nike, she would be working in a starbucks somewhere, talking about how she used to be a runner back in the day.
iknowright wrote:
How quickly Kara has forgotten that, if not for Nike, she would be working in a starbucks somewhere, talking about how she used to be a runner back in the day.
You do realize that there are quite a few other companies that sponsor runners don't you?
This move by usatf shows that they only care about MONEY MONEY MONEY. Not the athletes. No different than the NCAA.
oiselle joiselle wrote:
This move by usatf shows that they only care about MONEY MONEY MONEY. Not the athletes. No different than the NCAA.
Also: no different than Oiselle.
Doping NOPers wrote:
The fierce little flock of angry birds is f-cking sh-t up! They love kara and want to be her friends.
nike could give evil lessons to hitler and nixon.
Does this mean Shalane will soon be joining Kara on team F S U?
DaveW wrote:
Until then, their business plan comes across as a bunch of whinny sorority girls. I advise them to take the high road in their own niche and stop pretending they are holier than thou.
Why are you so sexist, Dave? Can't you get your point across without resorting to misogynist analogies?
/thread
you completely missed the point
Kanye North wrote:
800 dude wrote:This is an interesting issue, but actually, I think under the Supreme Court's very recent Lexmark decision, USATF would probably have standing to protect Nike's trademarks.
You're overthinking this - USATF is protecting USATF's rights, not Nike's. USATF has a right to license a company to advertise on US jerseys (and granted that license exclusively to Nike); Oiselle infringed on USATF's rights. If USATF had chosen not to license its jerseys to any company (i.e., if there were no company logos on the front), they could still send a cease and desist logo to a commercial company photoshopping a logo onto the jerseys.
Both Nike and USATF were damaged here.
Incorrect.
Volunteer amateur snapshots issued by the meet director are not advertisements. Millions of people muck up selfies and re-post them on instagram. Oiselle has done nothing wrong.
800 dude wrote:
In fact, Oiselle probably broke the law on purpose to goad Nike into bullying them. Oiselle knows they don't have much liability exposure, and it makes Nike look bad. Smart move.
...
Their liability exposure is tiny. Nike would be entitled only to the profits that Oiselle earned from their infringement.
Would you be willing to put all of this in a legal opinion letter for Oiselle's CEO, perhaps to assist her in deciding whether to engage in further willful violations of (among other things) the Lanham Act? I sure wouldn't.