Legal Opinion
Bikila v. Vibram USA Inc.
District Court, W.D. Washington
Decided October 31, 2016No. CASE NO. C15-5082-RBLPublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
Ronald B. Leighton, United States District Judge
THIS MATTER is before the Court on defendants’ motion for summary judgment [Dkt. #49]. This case involves a running shoe Vibram named after Abebe Bikila, the late Ethiopian Olympic marathoner. Vibram trademarked the name without requesting or receiving his heirs’ permission. Bikila’s heirs claim Vibram violated the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)), Washington’s Personality Rights Act (RCW 63.60 et seq.), and the Washington Consumer Protection Act (RCW 19.86.020). They also assert a state law unjust enrichment claim,
Vibram seeks summary…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Precision Instrument Manufacturing Co. v. Automotive Maintenance MacHinery Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Bagdadi v. NazarCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1996
- Jarrow Formulas, Inc. v. Nutrition Now, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Nat'l Prods., Inc. v. Arkon Res., Inc.District Court, W.D. Washington · 2018
- Inland Technology Incorporated v. The Allen Company, Inc.District Court, W.D. Washington · 2026