Nike v. Lotas: Nike Dunk Confusion?

By Virinchi Sindhwani, JD Candidate L’23

Iconic Los Angeles-based designer Warren Lotas has made a name for himself in the fashion industry. Over the past few years, Lotas has exploded onto the streetwear scene and into the wardrobe of "hypebeasts,” NBA players, and fashion icons alike. For years, Lotas has been known for his customized Nike Dunk Low-inspired sneakers, paying homage to the classic shoe while referencing famous horror movie characters, such as Jason Vorhees and Freddy Krueger

Last month, Lotas revealed that he had teamed up with Nike collaborator Jeff Staple to release another version of the Dunk Low silhouette, this time to reinterpret the famous—and highly expensive—Nike Dunk SB Low Staple NYC Pigeon. Lotas did not receive permission from Nike before the collaboration and release.

On October 14th, 2020, Nike filed a new “trademark and anti-dilution” lawsuit against Lotas in the Central District Court of California, asserting that Nike had not authorized the reintroduction of the sneaker.

Nike has submitted claims of trademark infringement and dilution, unfair competition, and false designation of origin. The company is seeking monetary damages, as well as immediate and permanent injunctive relief to prevent the release of these sneakers, hoping to enjoin Lotas and his company from appropriating Nike in the future.

Nike stated that it “protects its iconic sneaker designs, and its intellectual property in those designs, by rooting-out bad actors that undermine the DNA of sneaker culture by promoting and selling fakes.” Nike asserted, “Warren Lotas is one those bad actors,” and is “currently promoting and selling fakes of coveted Nike Dunks,” which were first released “over 30 years ago, [and which are] now recognized as one of the most iconic and influential sneakers of all time.”

Nike went on to claim that “there is already confusion in the marketplace regarding whether they are legitimate customizations or illegal fakes,” as indicated by commentary on social media. Hardly a coincidence, such alleged confusion about the nature of the lookalike sneakers has been “intentionally created” by Warren Lotas, per Nike, which argues that Lotas “is attempting to capitalize on it.” 

Nike contends that Lotas is violating federal trademark law by using Nike’s registered DUNK word mark, Nike’s registered Dunk trade dress, and a mark that is confusingly similar to Nike’s famous Swoosh design to promote and sell his shoes. According to the company, this use is “likely to confuse, mislead, or deceive customers, purchasers, and members of the general public as to the origin, source, sponsorship, or affiliation of [Lotas] or [his] infringing products with Nike or Nike’s products,” and, “is likely to cause such people to believe in error that [his] infringing products have been authorized, sponsored, approved, endorsed, or licensed by Nike or that [Warren Lotas] is in some way affiliated with Nike”. 

Nike claims it has filed suit “to protect its intellectual property and to clear the confusion in the marketplace by setting the record straight—not a single component of Warren Lotas’s fake sneakers comes from an original Nike Dunk,” and more than that, “Warren Lotas’s ‘Dunk’ sneakers are not legitimate customizations, they are illegal fakes.”

On Instagram, Lotas fired back against Nike, stating, “We believe they are using this lawsuit to suffocate small brands, customizers, and artists, not just WL. Even if you hate us, you need to understand the precedent this will set for creating as the little guy.”

Nike has filed a continuation of its lawsuit, attacking a replacement shoe Lotas had offered his customers. The case remains pending.

Material Objects in the Digital Age

By Wesley Newton, JD Candidate L’22

In the 1976 Copyright Act, “material object” referred to, among other things, the physical substance in which studios imprinted recordings. This 1976 definition of “material object” was intended to be forward-looking, including fixation by “any method now known or later developed.” As digital methods have developed over time, the phrase “material object” has become an increasingly technical term of art. New statutes and technologies have led to clarifications and divergent definitions by courts and Congress.

Read More

Phillies Give Mascot a Copyright-Inspired Makeover

By Nicolas Harris, JD Candidate L’22

The Phillie Phanatic, the Philadelphia Phillies baseball club’s furry green mascot, has brought comic mischief to the ballpark since 1978. But in June 2018, the question of copyright over the mascot became one of real, legal mischief for the club.

Read More

Developments in Intellectual Property and Artificial Intelligence

By Chongwu Du, JD Candidate L’22

Questions about the boundaries of intellectual property rights are beginning to emerge as machines become a more substantial part of the creative process. It is not a new phenomenon for creators to use tools to facilitate their artistic creation process--writers once used quill and ink to write, and now use Microsoft Word. New tools such as Artificial Intelligence (AI) can now perform most of the work without any human interaction, functioning more like the writer than the quill. For example, nonprofit research lab OpenAI has developed an AI-powered language model that is able to write a fictional story with human input of as little as two sentences.

Read More

VOLUME UP: SONOS FILES PATENT INFRINGEMENT SUIT AGAINST GOOGLE

By Alicia Lai, JD Candidate L’21

The biggest news of CES 2020 (the annual Consumer Electronics Show highlighting hot new consumer tech gadgets on the floor of a Las Vegas showroom) revolved around a company that was not present at the show yet designed its entrance for “maximum impact” at CES. On January 7, 2020—an hour before the doors opened for the first day of the fair—the New York Times broke the story that the audio company Sonos was suing Google for patent infringement.

Read More

Jay-Z Parts With Nothin’ For Big Pimpin’

By Sarah Marmon, JD Candidate L’21

In Fahmy v. Jay-Z, 908 F.3d 383 (9th Cir. 2018), the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the District Court’s determination that Fahmy, the heir to the copyright for Khosara, a song sampled in Jay-Z’s Big Pimpin’, assigned all of his rights under Egyptian copyright law and was not entitled to damages for copyright infringement.

Read More

Federal Circuit Upholds Validity of Anticonvulsant Drug Patent

By Zachary Furcolo

In Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Research Corp. Technologies, Inc., 914 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 1, 2019), the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) that claims 8–13 in U.S. Reissue Patent 38,551 (“the ’551 patent”) for an anticonvulsant drug were non-obvious and thus, the claims were not invalid on those grounds. 

Read More

Federal Circuit Stomps Out Recognition of Separate Registered and Common-Law Trademarks

By Sofia Bonfiglio

Converse, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm., Inc., 909 F.3d 1110 (Fed. Cir. 2018), concerns the alleged infringement of Converse’s trade dress rights arising from its trademark registration and from common law. U.S. Trademark Registration No. 4,398,753 (“the ’753 trademark”), issued to Converse on September 10, 2013, describes the trade-dress configuration: three design elements making up the midsole of Converse’s Chuck Taylor All Star shoes. The court held that ITC erred in applying the wrong standards regarding its invalidity and infringement determinations, vacating and remanding the case for further proceedings. 

Read More

Eleventh Circuit Holds Code Annotations Are Not Copyrightable

By Sofia Bonfiglio

In Code Revision Commission v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc., 906 F.3d 1229 (11th Cir. 2018), the Eleventh Circuit decided whether the annotations contained in the Official Code of Georgia Annotated (OCGA), which is part of the official codification of Georgia’s laws and enacted by the Georgia General Assembly, may be copyrighted by the State of Georgia . . .

Read More