Legal Opinion
Nike, Inc. v. Wu
District Court, S.D. Illinois
Decided November 19, 2018No. 13 Civ. 8012 (CM)PublishedCited by 39 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMcMahon, C.J.
*351Apparel and footwear companies NIKE, Inc. and Converse, Inc. sued over six hundred online retailers for selling products that infringed their trademarks. After the defendants predictably failed to appear, NIKE and Converse won a default judgment for $1.8 billion, which they assigned to an investment firm. The investment firm sought to enforce the judgment by, among other things, subpoenaing six nonparty Chinese banks for account information related to the defendants. The banks moved to quash the subpoenas, and the investment firm moved to compel. The Magistrate Judge, who was supervising…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- United States v. United States Gypsum Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1948
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S. A. v. BrownSupreme Court of the United States · 2011
- Arista Records, LLC v. Doe 3Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2010
- Societe Internationale Pour Participations Industrielles Et Commerciales, S. A. v. RogersSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by39 opinions
- Next Investments, LLC v. Bank of ChinaCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2021
- In re Grand Jury Investigation of Possible Violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1956 and 50 U.S.C. § 1705Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2019
- Arcelik A.S. v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours and CoCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2021
- Ashford Locke Builders LLC v. GM Contractors Plus Corp.District Court, E.D. New York · 2020
- Ayestas v. Harris CountyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2026
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.