Legal Opinion
Michael Gardner and Bien Licensing Agency, Inc. v. Nike, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided January 31, 2002No. 00-56404PublishedCited by 36 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
FERGUSON, Circuit Judge.
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…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Busic v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Products Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1957
- S.O.S., Inc. v. Payday, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1989
- Harris v. Emus Records Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1984
- Gardner v. Nike, Inc.District Court, C.D. California · 2000
3Cited by36 opinions
- Sybersound Records, Inc. v. UAV Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008
- Nancey Silvers v. Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2005
- Minden Pictures, Inc. v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2015
- Miller v. Glenn Miller Productions, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2006
- Ward v. National Geographic SocietyDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2002
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.