A Theoretical Explanation of Sport Trademark Litigation: Already v. Nike and Forever 21 v. Adidas

Sungho Cho, Natasha Brison, Katie Brown, Kevin Quinn

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Trademark law provides owners of legally protected marks with a set of legal claims against unauthorized users. Law and economics and brand equity theories rationalize the system of trademarks. Meanwhile, game theory explains why trademark rights must be legally protected and how parties in sport trademark litigation make decisions in anticipation of the opponents’ expected course of action. Four game settings rationalize the utility of trademarks and showcase parties’ strategic moves in trademark litigation: (1) prisoners’ dilemma, (2) game of chicken, (3) sequential game, and (4) game of brinkmanship. Focusing on the Already v. Nike and Forever 21 v. Adidas trademark litigation cases, this study explores the interactive dynamics between parties and the factors associated with the parties’ decision-making during the process of litigation.

Original languageEnglish
JournalJournal of Global Sport Management
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - 2021

Keywords

  • Sport trademarks
  • brand management
  • game theory
  • legal
  • litigation

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'A Theoretical Explanation of Sport Trademark Litigation: Already v. Nike and Forever 21 v. Adidas'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this