Login | Online Store | Training | Find Rep | Contact Us  
 Latest News 
 Product List 
 Related Links 

   HomeLatest News
    

NIKEPAL Was Likely to Cause Dilution by Blurring of NIKE

by Thomas Long, Legal Editor, CCH Trademark Law Guide

Registration of the mark NIKEPAL --for import and export agencies and wholesale distributorships featuring testing instruments and glassware for laboratory use and other applications --was likely to cause dilution by blurring of the trade name and mark NIKE --registered and used in connection with athletic shoes, sporting goods, and numerous other goods and services --according to the federal district court in Sacramento. Nike's request for an injunction barring use of the NIKEPAL mark was granted, as well as Nike's request for an order sustaining an opposition to NIKEPAL's registration. A decision by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TRADEMARK LAW GUIDE ¶60,549) dismissing Nike's opposition action was reversed.

The NIKE mark was famous prior to the first use in commerce in May 1998 of the mark NIKEPAL, the court said. NIKE was promoted nationally through various combinations of athlete endorsements and television, radio, print media, and billboard advertisements for more than two decades before 1998. Nike had spent more than a billion dollars promoting NIKE products in the United States. Sales of NIKE products reached the level of a billion dollars per year in the United States well before May 1998. Since the early 1990s, NIKE had been consistently ranked as a top brand in brand surveys in the United States and the world.

NIKE and NIKEPAL were nearly identical, in the court's view. The dominant feature of both marks was the term "Nike." Nike's use of the NIKE mark was substantially exclusive, and the mark was widely recognized. Consumer survey evidence showed that there was a strong association between NIKE and NIKEPAL. The applicant's assertion that he came up with the term NIKEPAL by opening the dictionary to a random page was not credible, according to the court, so the factor of intent favored Nike.

Nike, Inc., ED Cal., ¶61,106



 

 (The above feature is selected from the newsletter published monthly along with full text documents and other materials provided to subscribers of the CCH Trademark Law Guide.)

     
  
 

   ©2008, CCH. All Rights Reserved.
Print this Page | About Us | Privacy Policy | Site Map