Tag: Nike

Trademark Infringement in the Metaverse: Nike Sues Online Resale Platform Alleging Infringing Use of Logo in StockX NFT

In the 3D virtual world known as the metaverse, pioneering enterprises are exploring ways to capitalize on this new frontier’s growing popularity. As expected, the use of company marks and brands is becoming an issue to watch. Take Nike’s recent lawsuit against online resale platform StockX. The suit alleges StockX NFTs that incorporate images of Nike sneakers infringe on Nike’s famous trademarks. The complaint presents novel legal issues that, once decided, have the potential to define the scope of trademark rights in the world of NFTs.

What is an NFT?

Before we get into infringement, we need to understand the landscape in play. Non-fungible tokens, or NFTs, are unique digital assets stored on the blockchain, which is a digital and non-centralized ledger that publicly discloses who owns a particular NFT. NFTs act as a digital representation of ownership of tangible and nontangible items in the real world, such as artwork, real estate, and video game skins. Each NFT has a unique address associated with its owner that enables proof of ownership. NFTs can exist in any form of digital media, ranging from images to songs. Among some of the famous examples are the Bored Ape Yacht Club NFTs, which act as both a digital avatar and a ticket to an exclusive online social club.

Bored Ape Yacht Club NFTs are represented by a digital avatar of a uniquely designed ape. The middle image is a Bored Ape owned by Tonight Show host, Jimmy Fallon, who purchased the NFT for over $200,000.

While the first NFT was minted back in May 2014, they have only recently gained mainstream attention following celebrity buy-in and reports of NFTs selling for millions of dollars. In 2021, a crypto entrepreneur purchased Twitter founder Jack Dorsey’s first-ever tweet as an NFT for $2.9 million. As pricy NFTs garnered mainstream attention, many were left wondering why someone would pay millions of dollars to purchase what appears to be a simple image or video that is readily available to view online for free. While it is possible to screengrab and download copies of digital art that someone has purchased as an NFT, the NFT purchaser still remains the owner of the original work and such ownership is recorded on the blockchain. While someone may have a print of one of Monet’s impressionist landscapes hanging in his or her living room, only one original copy of the painting exists and ownership of that original carries significant value despite the existence of copies.

Nike Swooshes In

Nike brought an action in February 2022 for trademark infringement against StockX, a large online resale marketplace. StockX is a streetwear reseller that, unlike other marketplaces, also acts as an intermediary that provides authentication services to its customers. Recently, StockX expanded this authentication service by launching its own collection of NFTs, which it claims are linked to authenticated physical goods. Many of the NFTs being minted by StockX are comprised of images of Nike sneakers. Nike alleges such use of Nike’s famous marks constitutes trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and trademark dilution, among other violations.

StockX’s Nike NFTs.

The case hinges on whether StockX’s NFTs represent proof of ownership of physical goods or whether the NFTs themselves are virtual products.

StockX contends its NFTs are simply a method to track ownership of physical Nike products sold on the StockX marketplace and held in StockX’s custody. In denying that its NFTs are virtual products, StockX points to its redemption process in which NFTs may be redeemed by an owner at any time in exchange for delivery of the physical shoes. Importantly, this novel method for tracking ownership facilitates a more efficient and sustainable resale process. Instead of physical goods that are frequently sold and traded among consumers being repeatedly shipped following each sale, users can simply sell and exchange an NFT.

Nike argues that StockX’s Nike-branded NFTs are themselves virtual products, and not simply a representation of ownership of physical Nike sneakers. While StockX touts its customers’ ability to redeem an NFT in exchange for possession of the physical product as evidence that their NFTs act simply as proof of ownership, such redemption process is currently unavailable, with no indication as to when, if ever, such service will become available. Instead of presenting a new and efficient method for trading goods, Nike alleges that StockX is minting NFTs to profit from Nike’s goodwill and reputation in the streetwear scene. Indeed, the potential profit from selling Nike-branded NFTs is significant – a physical pair of Nike Dunk Low shoes have a resale price of $282 on StockX, but the StockX NFT purportedly linked to this shoe has traded for over $3,000, an almost 1,000 percent price difference between the physical shoe and the NFT. Nike concludes that the StockX NFTs are collectible virtual products, created and distributed by StockX using Nike branding without authorization.

Nike has a particularly strong interest in avoiding brand confusion in this case, as it recently acquired RTFKT Studios (pronounced “artifact”), a digital art and collectibles creative studio engaged in the creation of NFTs, in the hopes of combining blockchain technology with sneaker culture and fashion. Through this new acquisition, Nike has released NFTs through RTFKT, including collectible digital sneakers. Notably, Nike additionally has multiple pending trademark applications before the US Patent and Trademark Office to register its sneakers as virtual goods.

The Nike case is poised to be key to the development of metaverse jurisprudence because of its potential to address the scope of a trademark owner’s right to regulate unauthorized uses of its marks in NFTs. While the outcome of this case remains to be seen, other major brands are already seeking protection of their branding in this emerging space by filing trademarks to specifically protect virtual goods and services. Given the nascent uncertainty of how our current legal framework will apply in the metaverse, seeking registration for virtual goods and services is a prudent step for brand owners as we conduct business in the fast-growing digital economy.

©2022 Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
For more articles about copyright infringement, visit the NLR Intellectual Property Law section.

Virtual Marking: Guidance on Doing It Right

Despite the fact that virtual patent marking was introduced nearly a decade ago, jurisprudence addressing virtual marking issues has been quite limited. Recent guidance from U.S. district courts, however, paints a clearer picture of the patent marking statute’s requirements to (a) associate the patented article with the number of the patent; (b) place either “patent” or “pat.” together with a website address on the product; and (c) ensure the marking is “substantially consistent and continuous.”

Since 1952, the patent marking statute (“Marking Statute”) has encouraged patentees to give public notice of a patented article through physical application of the patent number to the article, which assists the public and helps mitigate innocent infringement. 35 U.S.C. § 287; Nike, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 138 F.3d 1437, 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Giving effect to this goal, the marking statute provides a financial disincentive for patent owners who do not mark their products (i.e., a patentee is precluded from recovering damages for infringement of unmarked articles prior to notice of infringement). Once marked, a patent owner’s marking must be “substantially consistent and continuous.” Id. at 1446.

Since the AIA’s passage in 2011, however, patentees have been able to inform the public that an article is patented through “virtual marking” (i.e., use of the word “patent” or the abbreviation “pat.” together with the URL of a website address where the actual patent number may be found). 35 U.S.C. § 287. As opposed to physically marking a patent number on a product, virtual marking allows a patent owner to quickly update its patent data website page without the costs of modifying product tooling or packaging (e.g., for newly issued, expired, or invalidated patents). In relevant part, the Marking Statute provides:

“Patentees . . . may give notice to the public that the same is patented . . . by fixing thereon the word ‘patent’ or the abbreviation ‘pat’ together with an address of a posting on the Internet, . . . that associates the patented article with the number of the patent.” 35 U.S.C. § 287(a) (emphasis added).

The Delaware District Court recently clarified what does, and does not, constitute adequate association, concluding that a “website itself must do more than simply list the patentee’s patents.” Mfg. Res. Int’l v. Civiq Smartscapes, LLC, Case No. 17-269, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146060, at *3 (D. Del. Aug. 28, 2019)(emphasis added). Citing the statute’s “plain language,” the court reasoned that “[s]imply listing all patents that could possibly apply to a product or all patents owned by the patentee” “merely creates a research project for the public,” as opposed to giving public notice. Id. at *30-31. The court described why this would be the case by pointing to two examples lacking the association necessary “as a matter of law to meet the requirements of virtual marking”:


View larger image

Id.

The Court concluded that Plaintiff’s examples did “nothing to ‘associate’ any specific product it has marked with the patents which cover it.” Id. at 31. The Court was not persuaded by Plaintiff’s arguments that proper association was met in view of (1) Plaintiff’s statement that “[o]ne or more of the above listed MRI patents may be used by LG-MRI products under license from MRI, Inc.”, and (2) Plaintiff’s clarification of “the patent category (LCD Display Patents)”. Id. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s website failed to “provide ‘a ready means of discerning the status of the intellectual property embodied in an article of manufacture or design,” and no damages were awarded for infringement that occurred prior to the notice that was provided by the filing of the suit. Id., citing Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., 489 U.S. 141, 162 (1989).

Beyond the association requirement, courts also have found that a website address lacking the words “patent” or “pat.” does not provide constructive notice, A to Z Machining Serv., LLC v. Nat’l Storm Shelter, LLC, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149387 (W.D. Okla. 2011), and that evidence supporting consistent marking of substantially all products may include (a) documentary evidence concerning the timeframe in which the website has operated; (b) engineering and assembly drawings or the actual product depicting virtual mark placement; and (c) testamentary evidence concerning the frequency of the virtual mark’s use on products. See Asia Vital Components Co. v. Asetek Danmark A/S, 377 F. Supp. 3d 990, 1024-25 (N.D. Cal. 2019), citing SEB S.A. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 594 F.3d 1360, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

Notably, the burden remains on the patentee to demonstrate that its patent marking practices are effective and appropriate. In view of recent court guidance, consider the following points for creating an effective virtual marking strategy:

  • Include either “pat.” or “patent” together with the website address where the actual patent number may be found.
  • Place the patent owner’s website address on all patented products and clearly correlate each product that is covered by at least one claim of a specific patent on that website address for a patented product.
  • Periodically review the patent website page to ensure that it is current, accurate, and complete (e.g. reflecting new products; updating issued, expired, or invalidated patents).
  • Create and preserve records that demonstrate that the virtual marking was consistent and continuous. This may entail keeping a written log of updates to the patent website address, and preserving evidence that it was continually maintained

© 2019 Brinks Gilson Lione. All Rights Reserved.