Nike and the “Klaw” logo

There seems to be no peace of mind for the sports multinational Nike; it would seem that, this year, most of the profits had to be reinvested in costly legal fees, as the famous brand is often resonating with magazine owners, because of intellectual property disputes.

Kawhi Leonard, is the number two of the Toronto Raptors: I must admit I don’t know who he was until now, but I’m not an expert in basketball or NBA championships, of which I know the “outsiders”, that is the big names, those able to enter the collective imagination, as they represent, themselves, a “distinctive brand”!

In the NBA championship, one of the most famous overseas, together with the NFL (for American football), we find two categories of players: those who make “team”, names mentioned during the match, always at the top, but “squeezed” by a higher “match”, and the “loners”, the great champions, those who “make the difference”.

Kawhi Leonard is of a third type, a “silent superstar”, as it has been defined, who does not like to expose himself except for his merits on the field. Orphaned too young of his father, killed during a robbery, like his famous comic book alter ego, he learns to transfer all his emotions to the basketball, and after his successes in the university leagues, he enters the All-Star circuit, and Michael Jordan himself will define him the best in combining attack and defense.

Kawhi Leonard has decided to sue Nike for copyright infringement of the “The Klaw” or “KL2” logo he created in the Southern District of California.

FACT

In 2011 the player created a logo, consisting of a large hand, inside of which the initials of his name “K” and “L” and the number 2 of his jersey stood out, and granted the use to Nike, probably unwittingly, even for items not directly branded “Nike”.
The statement reads: “Unbeknownst to Leonard and without his consent, Nike then filed an application for copyright registration on the logo, claiming in a false way that it was the author.”
Nine pages of “history” of the birth of the brand, until the bitter epilogue, when the titanic company denied the possibility of use to the player, entrenched behind its registration as intellectual property and wary of its use: “Leonard has always been known for his huge hands and during his career, viewers have noticed this detail, attributing to those also the merit of having contributed to the success of the San Diego State player. For that, since his college days, Leonard had imagined designing a logo that would refer to something so important and personal in defining his image. At the turn of December 2011 and January 2012, Leonard completed the definition of an image that contained a reference to his hands, number and initials. A work shared with family, friends and refined thanks to the contribution of some designers, receiving comments and suggestions about it and making many additions after several comparisons”.

Leonard also admitted that he discussed the concept of a custom logo with Nike while under contract with them, but also that he rejected most of their subsequent proposals, wanting to use the logo instead for charitable initiatives for people in need.
The complaint comes after Nike was ordered not to commit copyright infringement, using the logo, registered in 2017, as it happens, following Leonard’s signature with the sponsor “New Balance”.
The player’s lawyers requested that Nike revoke the registration, allegedly fraudulent, but Nike refused. At this point, Leonard is suing.
It is not known whether the allegations are well-founded or not, and we still do not know Nike’s version, which has not yet ruled on the merits; we also do not know whether Leonard’s sponsorship contract with Nike has addressed the copyright issue.
It must be said, however, that the application of copyright, by Nike, would presage that, since the logo is a “work for hire” (editor’s note: “There is a third case, besides those of the known or anonymous author, and these are the works defined as “made for hire”, born in force of a working relationship, in which the authorship of the work is attributed to the client of the work, and not to its actual creator!”, see Popeye case), this could provide the ownership that would be due to the employer on a work done and performed by an employee. Nike may have stated in its application for registration that one of its employees had actually created the logo, thus making Leonard’s creation a “subordinate performance”.

In all likelihood, the dispute could result in a negotiation to end a litigation that would not only be long and costly, but would not benefit the image of both of them.

Nike, however, decided to counter and give his side of the story, in turn suing Leonard and trying to move the case to the Oregon District Court!

Nike, while acknowledging that Leonard provided a “draft” of a logo, claims to have, however, registered a different logo that was created by a team of Nike designers, on a “work-for-hire” basis. He also added, that Leonard would have accepted a provision, contained in the contract, by which he agreed not to use or allow others to use it, without Nike’s express and prior consent! As proof of the player’s awareness of what he had formed, the multinational company referred to an article, published in 2014, in which the player said: “I drew up a draft, I sent it and they (Jordan Brand) made it perfect … I give all the credit to the Jordan Brand team because I am not an artist at all … They refined it and made it look better than I thought it would ever be and I am extremely happy with the final version.”

Nike’s counterclaim at this point seeks an injunction preventing Leonard from using the logo, and a statement that Nike owns the logo, as well as damages for breach of contract and intentional copyright infringement, including recovery of legal fees.

All Rights Reserved
Raffaella Aghemo, Lawyer