Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
IP News
Nike Seeks $150 Million In Sanctions from Six Chinese Banks, and Loses
In 2013, Nike and its subsidiary, Converse, brought suit under the Lanham Act against 636 members of Chinese counterfeiting networks engaged in advertising and selling products bearing Nike's famous "Swoosh," "Jumpman," and Converse Chuck Taylor "All Star" label trademarks. The Defendants never having appeared, Nike was awarded a default judgment of over $1 billion. Much of the Defendants' funds were held in Chinese bank accounts, making it that much harder to collect from them, so Nike's successor-in-interest, Next Investments, LLC, sought $150 million in sanctions against six Chinese banks — non-parties to the underlying suit — (collectively Banks) primarily for the Banks' failure to freeze the Defendants' foreign accounts. A few weeks ago, the Second Circuit upheld a decision of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York refusing to make the Banks pay.
The asset restraint, first ordered early in the underlying litigation as part of a temporary restraining order, stated in relevant part that "Defendants…. and all persons acting in concert or in participation with any of them… are restrained and enjoined from transferring, withdrawing or disposing of any money or other assets of Defendants, or otherwise paying or transferring any money or other assets into or out of any accounts held by… Defendants, regardless of whether such money or assets are held in the U.S. or abroad."
Twice the Banks attempted to challenge the application of the asset restraint to their Chinese branches. Twice Nike and Next told them not to worry and that the restraints applied only to the Defendants. The switcheroo, or "gotcha tactic," as the district court called it, didn't come until 2019 — six years after the asset restraint was first ordered.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.