Michael Gardner and Bien Licensing Agency, Inc. v. Nike, Inc.

Good Law
2002 Daily Journal DAR 1193·279 F.3d 774·2002 WL 123296·61 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1529·2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 936
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJanuary 31, 200200-56404California3,104 words

Opinion

Opinion

Ferguson, J.

Appellants Michael Gardner (“Gardner”) and Bien Licensing Agency, Inc. (“Bien”) (collectively referred to as “Appellants”) appeal the District Court’s grant of summary judgment to Appellee Nike, Inc. (“Nike”). The District Court held that Appellants lacked standing because the licensee, Sony Music Entertainment Corporation (“Sony”), did not have the right to transfer its rights to Gardner under the exclusive license with the licensor, Nike, under the Copyright Act of 1976. Although we have previously addressed this issue under the Copyright Act of 1909, this is a case of first impression under the Copyright Act of 1976. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we AFFIRM.

Background

A. Factual History

In 1992, Nike and Sony entered into a licensing agreement involving a Nike-created cartoon character called MC Teach. In exchange for fifteen percent (15%) of profits earned from any use of MC Teach in merchandise other than records, Nike transferred the exclusive, perpetual, worldwide right to Sony to use MC Teach:

The agreement also stated that Nike “shall own the copyright in the Material and any published copy of the Material ... shall bear the…

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.