Legal Opinion
Gardner v. Nike, Inc.
District Court, C.D. California
Decided July 31, 2000No. CV-99-12700 LGBPublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT NINE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
BAIRD, District Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs Michael Gardner and Bien Licensing Agency, Inc. bring this action for declaratory relief against Nike. Nike moved for summary judgment arguing that plaintiffs do not have standing to bring this action.
II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In 1992, Nike and Sony entered into a licensing agreement. That licensing agreement granted Sony certain specific rights to a Nike-created cartoon character — MC Teach. 1 Both parties agree that the agreement contemplated an exclusive license. (See Pl.’s…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Harris v. Emus Records Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1984
- In Re Patient Education Media, Inc.United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · 1997
3Cited by3 opinions
- Michael Gardner and Bien Licensing Agency, Inc. v. Nike, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002
- Ward v. National Geographic SocietyDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2002
- Dahlen v. Michigan Licensed Beverage Ass'nDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2001