Gardner

Gardner v. Nike, Inc.

Good Law
110 F. Supp. 2d 1282·2000 WL 1217849·2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14096
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaJuly 31, 2000CV-99-12700 LGBCalifornia2,791 words

Opinion

Opinion

Baird, J.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT NINE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs Michael Gardner and Bien Licensing Agency, Inc. bring this action for declaratory relief against Nike. Nike moved for summary judgment arguing that plaintiffs do not have standing to bring this action.

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In 1992, Nike and Sony entered into a licensing agreement. That licensing agreement granted Sony certain specific rights to a Nike-created cartoon character — MC Teach. Both parties agree that the agreement contemplated an exclusive license. (See Pl.’s Statement of Genuine Issues ¶ 7.) Subsequently, Sony transferred all its rights in the exclusive license to plaintiff Gardner. As a result, Gardner, through its exclusive licensing agent, Bien Licensing Agency, Inc., started making use of the character on various products.

As a result of plaintiffs’ use of the character on educational materials, Nike has threatened legal action against plaintiffs and their proposed licensees. As a result of such threats, plaintiffs first filed suit in state court seeking declaratory relief, alleging slander of title and intentional interference with economic relations.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.