Lopez v. Nike, Inc.
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:20-cv-00905
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Lopez v. Nike, Judge Cott ordered additional briefing on a later Adidas decision’s relevance to the parties’ pending dispute.
Lopez and Bloomingdale’s, Inc., the parties directed to submit additional briefing; the order did not resolve the claims.
What happened
In Lopez v. Nike, Inc., the court addressed a later decision involving Lopez and Adidas that Bloomingdale’s said was relevant to its pending motion. The order did not decide the motion or the parties’ claims.
The court directed Lopez and Bloomingdale’s to file simultaneous, additional briefs of up to 10 pages on June 5, 2020. The briefs had to address judicial notice, differences in allegations about confusion involving LES BENJAMINS, and whether the court should follow the Adidas decision’s analysis of the trademark and other claims.
Judge James L. Cott issued the order on May 27, 2020, and directed that a copy be emailed and mailed to Lopez.
The detailed version
- Lopez v. Nike, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-00905
- Paul Gardephe
- May 27, 2020
Background
Bloomingdale’s, Inc. filed a notice of supplemental authority attaching Judge Liman’s May 19, 2020 decision in a related Adidas case. That decision was issued after Bloomingdale’s motion had been fully briefed. The court stated that the decision included information relevant to the dispute in Lopez v. Nike.
Issues for Additional Briefing
The court directed Lopez and Bloomingdale’s to submit additional briefing addressing how the Adidas decision affected their positions. The court asked the parties to address whether matters subject to judicial notice in the Adidas case—meaning facts or documents the court may accept without formal proof—should also be judicially noticed in this action when deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
The court also asked about differences between Lopez’s allegations in the Adidas case and his allegations in this case concerning the likelihood of consumer confusion and actual consumer confusion involving LES BENJAMINS. Finally, the court asked Bloomingdale’s to explain why the court should follow the Adidas decision’s analysis regarding dismissal of the trademark claim and other claims, and asked Lopez to explain why the court should not follow that analysis.
Order
Judge James L. Cott ordered Lopez and Bloomingdale’s to file simultaneous briefs of up to 10 additional pages, limited to the identified issues, on June 5, 2020. The order did not grant or deny the pending motion and did not resolve the trademark or other claims. The court directed that a copy of the order be emailed and mailed to Lopez.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.