Check out this story about a massive feud brewing between Nike and Reebok.
Nike, which takes over as the official NFL merchandise manufacturer on April 1st after Reebok held that distinction for the past 10 years, is not too pleased that Reebok took advantage of Tebow-mania hitting Broadway (the Denver Broncos traded Tim Tebow to the New York Jets on March 21st) by rushing a bunch of Jets jerseys with Tebow’s name and number to market before Reebok’s deal with the NFL expires on March 31st.
An injunction was issued yesterday prohibiting Reebok from selling any more Tebow/Jets merchandise and requiring Reebok to recall the offending Tebow merchandise. (Nike Inc. v. Reebok International Ltd., 12- cv-2275, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York).
I can see the ethics of both sides here. Nike thinks Reebok unfairly flooded the market with Tebow merchandise near the end of Reebok’s deal with the NFL in order to ensure that Reebok continues selling jerseys well after its contract expires. On the other hand, Reebok thinks that it was right and justified in producing Tebow merchandise to meet the instant demand created by the Tebow trade, since it was and continues to be (at least for a few more days) the official NFL merchandiser.
Who’s right? At least for now, U.S. District Judge Kevin Castel says it’s Nike. Should be a fun case to watch.
* Originally published at https://thinkethically.wordpress.com/
Legal Articles Additional Disclaimer
Lawyer.com is not a law firm and does not offer legal advice. Content posted on Lawyer.com is the sole responsibility of the person from whom such content originated and is not reviewed or commented on by Lawyer.com. The application of law to any set of facts is a highly specialized skill, practiced by lawyers and often dependent on jurisdiction. Content on the site of a legal nature may or may not be accurate for a particular state or jurisdiction and may largely depend on specific circumstances surrounding individual cases, which may or may not be consistent with your circumstances or may no longer be up-to-date to the extent that laws have changed since posting. Legal articles therefore are for review as general research and for use in helping to gauge a lawyer's expertise on a matter. If you are seeking specific legal advice, Lawyer.com recommends that you contact a lawyer to review your specific issues. See Lawyer.com's full Terms of Use for more information.
Check out this story about a massive feud brewing between Nike and Reebok.
Nike, which takes over as the official NFL merchandise manufacturer on April 1st after Reebok held that distinction for the past 10 years, is not too pleased that Reebok took advantage of Tebow-mania hitting Broadway (the Denver Broncos traded Tim Tebow to the New York Jets on March 21st) by rushing a bunch of Jets jerseys with Tebow’s name and number to market before Reebok’s deal with the NFL expires on March 31st.
An injunction was issued yesterday prohibiting Reebok from selling any more Tebow/Jets merchandise and requiring Reebok to recall the offending Tebow merchandise. (Nike Inc. v. Reebok International Ltd., 12- cv-2275, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York).
I can see the ethics of both sides here. Nike thinks Reebok unfairly flooded the market with Tebow merchandise near the end of Reebok’s deal with the NFL in order to ensure that Reebok continues selling jerseys well after its contract expires. On the other hand, Reebok thinks that it was right and justified in producing Tebow merchandise to meet the instant demand created by the Tebow trade, since it was and continues to be (at least for a few more days) the official NFL merchandiser.
Who’s right? At least for now, U.S. District Judge Kevin Castel says it’s Nike. Should be a fun case to watch.
* Originally published at https://thinkethically.wordpress.com/
Legal Articles Additional Disclaimer
Lawyer.com is not a law firm and does not offer legal advice. Content posted on Lawyer.com is the sole responsibility of the person from whom such content originated and is not reviewed or commented on by Lawyer.com. The application of law to any set of facts is a highly specialized skill, practiced by lawyers and often dependent on jurisdiction. Content on the site of a legal nature may or may not be accurate for a particular state or jurisdiction and may largely depend on specific circumstances surrounding individual cases, which may or may not be consistent with your circumstances or may no longer be up-to-date to the extent that laws have changed since posting. Legal articles therefore are for review as general research and for use in helping to gauge a lawyer's expertise on a matter. If you are seeking specific legal advice, Lawyer.com recommends that you contact a lawyer to review your specific issues. See Lawyer.com's full Terms of Use for more information.