Nike v. "JUST DID IT" Enterprises 6 F. 3rd 1225 (7th Cir. 1993)

Facts: Since the 1970's, Nike, Inc. has used the word "NIKE" with a swoosh design as trademarks in connection with their footwear, clothing items and accessories products. Both NIKE and the swoosh design are well known and federally registered trademarks. In 1989, Nike added the slogan "Just Do It" in connection with the promotion of its products.

As a parody, Michael Stanard began to design T-shirts and sweatshirts with the name MIKE and the swoosh mark design. Stanard then gave the name "JUST DID IT" Enterprises to this business venture. His products were sold through a mail order catalog and marketed only to persons named Mike or their family members. Nike sued Stanard for trademark infringement.

The Federal Courts found that the case should be reversed and remanded for further considerations based on the following guidelines:
a) Similarity of trademark - the court must decide whether the similarities in trademarks caused confusion to the customer when purchasing the item. Unlike Nike, Stanard does not sell products in retail stores and in order to purchase products checks were made payable to "JUST DID IT" Enterprises. Therefore, in order for the customer to be confused, he must see Mike as similar to Nike and continue to be confused while making check payable to "JUST DID IT" Enterprises.
b) Similar products and concurrent use - trademark does not have to be similar to find and infringement when goods are in close competition.
c) Marketing channels - the court will need to weight the fact the Stanard specifically marketed his products to an audience that would appreciate the distinction, and not through mass markets where product confusion may be more easily made.
d) Customer care -
e) Trademark strength - the stronger the trademark the greater the protection of that trademark.
f) Actual Confusion - Nike must demonstrate to the court why customers would believe Stanard's products were made by Nike.
g) Intent of the alleged infringer - persons intend to sell a product of those of another as your own does raise the issue of infringement. However, Stanard intend to parody Nike will have to be considered in the lower courts. "Parodies do not exist by mere happenstance. Actual knowledge of the trademark by the presenter as well as observers or the customer is virtually required" The Federal Court was unable to conclude as a matter of law whether Stanard's parody confuses the purchasing public; therefore, the case was sent back to the lower court for further considerations.