Oiselle Reprimanded by USATF

Perhaps, Oiselle is picking a fight. The USATF is forcing individual contractors to agree to Nike's terms in order to compete. Athletes have no choice but to agree. You can't run in the Olympics without being a Nike pawn. USATF(Nike) shouldn't have exclusive control over all American track and field athletes' ability to create income.

TBY wrote:

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.

Cool - thanks. Very helpful. My reaction to this thread has gone through 3 stages.

1) Initial response; they fuzzed out the Nike logo but didn't replace it, so what's the big deal?

2) oh, they didn't just fuzz out the Nike logo, they added in their own logo + other company logos - blatantly not legal, what are they thinking?

3) Oiselle CEO Sally Bergesen isn't stupid,. See

for her article about why the Nike deal with USATF is terrible for US Track & Field. You can agree or disagree, but I'm prepared to argue, based on this article, that she isn't stupid and 100% knew that what she was doing with that image was going to draw a reaction. So why did she do it? Marketing? I say no, I say civil disobedience, and in this particular situation, I'm all for civiil disobedience, because what other options are open to the parties harmed by the USATF - Nike deal?

p.s. back in my younger days, I was part of the 1985 civil disobedience action at Columbia University to pressure the university to divest itself of holding in companies that did business in South Africa. There were all kinds of arguments to be made on either side of that issue, but one aspect of the dispute that pushed me to participate in the action was the [I thought reliably reported] response of the trustees of the university to a hunger strike in support of divestment, which was "keep on fasting." When the powers that be are effectively telling you to drop dead, it seems to me that you have to be ready to break the law [and suffer the consequences.] Favorite chant from those years, "Remember '68, before it's too late."

p.p.s. To the poster who claimed Pre would have been on the Nike/USATF side of this dispute - really? really??? I have vivid memories of the 1972 Olympics and I can still remember exactly where I was when I found out Pre had died and I simply cannot imagine him being on the side of the powers that be in this kind of dispute. Perhaps people who actually knew him believe otherwise, and if so, I'll defer to their opinions, but for now that just doesn't square with my sense of who he was.

I don't understand what you mean that you can't run in the Olympics without being a Nike pawn.

If you qualify at the Olympic trials don't you go to the Olympics?

By the way, why would a sports bra company be the one to pick a fight about this. BS ... all about PR, but in the end, I don't think the young girls running today have any reason to look favorably on this company.

oops - posted the wrong link. see http://sallybergesen.tumblr.com/post/82929665147/why-23-more-years-of-nike-usatf-is-bad-for-our-sport

Because if you qualify for the olympics in T&F, no matter what company / companies support you, you're stuck wearing Nike togs in the actual O games. Again, "Remember 68, before it's too late."

In 1988, NYRRC put on an Eikeden, with teams from numerous countries (Ireland won) plus the 50-states and NYC and DC. When Nike and Reebok learned that Asics was a sponsor and that athletes would wear a singlet with an Asics logo, they pulled their sponsored-runners.

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/04/08/sports/a-new-road-race-for-new-york-city.html

(In 2006, NYRR returned the favor by allowing Nike to put on the Armstrong-circus and undermine Asics sponsorship of the NYC Marathon.)

I don't recall Nike complaining when Michael Jordan refused to participate in the award ceremony at the Olympics if he had to show the Reebok logo on his uniform so he and other Nike athletes were allowed to make it so the Reebok logo would not be seen, several of them draping themselves in the American flag

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1992-08-09/sports/1992222100_1_reebok-nike-jordan-put

Could you imagine Nike allowing that to happen with, say, Jenny Simpson draping a flag over her uniform at an award ceremony

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.

Oiselle CEO Sally Bergesen and USATF CEO Max Siegel should see a Rabbi for behavioral guidance.

DaveW wrote:

I don't understand what you mean that you can't run in the Olympics without being a Nike pawn.

If you qualify at the Olympic trials don't you go to the Olympics?

By the way, why would a sports bra company be the one to pick a fight about this. BS ... all about PR, but in the end, I don't think the young girls running today have any reason to look favorably on this company.

Oiselle isn't a sports bra company. They only make four bras. They're a women's running apparel company. Their best products are tights, shorts, shirts, arm warmers, and some novelties like the Rundies. I don't know anyone who wears their sports bras.

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.

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.

Perhaps everyone should photoshop a usatf/nike jersey and post to twitter or Instagram and see what happens.

wejo wrote:

quote]rekrunner wrote:

If I took pictures at the meet, photoshopped them, and posted them on the web, could the USATF make a case against me? Maybe Nike could, if they could show I damaged them, but not the USATF.

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".[/quote]

You don't know that USATF's contract doesn't require them to take action any time they see their sponsorship agreement violated.

Their contract with NIKE may require the burden of enforcement of such issues to USATF as well as NIKE, requiring in essence, USATF to take action any time they notice such abuses.

I'm sure Oiselle would just be thrilled if someone did that to their sponsored athletes.

You don't have to like NIKE or USATF (I want to see them blown up and re-orged from the ground up into many separate governing bodies...road racing separate from Track etc., get the nepotism out etc.) But don't think this action has anything more to do with legal agreements than "priorities."

Again -- I'd bet USATF's legal agreements with NIKE require them to take proactive action.

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.html

I'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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Olympics≠NBA

Nike's agreement is with USATF, not IOC/IAAF.

I have not personally tried their sports bras, so I don't want to disparage this product. I have also not tried the tights, arm warmers or Rundies whatever that is.

I have no doubt that they have great products geared for women. But, why don't they focus on the young woman runner of today that is running faster than ever. I really don't think these runners identify with growlers or whiners.

I'm all for sponsors competing in the open market. But if Nike is making long term exclusive deals with the USATF, the market is no longer open.

DaveW wrote:

No, they would exist longer if they didn't make a business plan about pretending they are holier than thou including the only company that substantially funded track for decades.

Nike is interested in expanding the sport in their interest. Oiselle is interested diminishing others who have expanded the sport.

If there are other sponsors who can compete with Nike in the open market, then they should. These other sponsors can create exclusive or non-exclusive deals as they desire. I'm sure when Oiselle sells their first million sports bras then they too can sponsor some athletes and dictate a few terms.

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.

The image is a complimentary editorial image from the IAAF volunteers and is not a commercial image. Oiselle can change it (and so can any of us) and re-tweet it. USATF is opening itself up to a civil harassment judgement. Stephanie Hightower and her eunuch Max Siegal better SHUT THE F U C K UP.

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.

I guess it will be open in a few decades. Where was everyone in the last few decades?

That was what the open market was all about. Sorry you weren't there to see it.