Skip to content

Intellepedia

IP News Center

  • Home
  • Patents
  • Trademarks
  • Copyrights
  • Designs
  • Trade Secrets

Nike ‘JUMPMAN’ NOT a Copy

Author: Intellepedia
August 4, 2015
Copyrights, Intellectual Property

Summary

This post examines the legal dispute between Nike and photographer Jacobus Rentmeester regarding the origin of the iconic Jumpman logo. Rentmeester claimed that Nike’s logo was copied from his photograph of Michael Jordan, originally taken for Life magazine in 1984. The US Federal Court found that the photograph was entitled to only thin copyright protection and that substantial differences existed between the two images. The court dismissed the copyright infringement suit, finding no violation by Nike. This analysis highlights the nuanced approach courts take in evaluating copyright claims related to creative expressions.

Whenever one talks about sport shoes the brand NIKE immediately comes to mind. It is one of the most popular brands and also has releases exclusive editions of shoes for different sports. One such edition is JUMPMAN. This edition was created in 1980s, after Hall of Fame basketball player Michael Jordan entered into a deal with NIKE for a special edition of shoes as well as apparels.

Through decades the JUMPMAN logo has been recognized by the logo of Jordan’s image sailing towards the basket in a grand ballet inspired pose with a basketball in the left hand. With more than a million products sold, JUMPMAN has now become a household name.

However, in January 2015, a well known American photographer, Jacobus Rentmeester claimed that the JUMPMAN logo has been aped from a picture he had taken on Jordan for a special edition of Life magazine, for the 1984 Summer Olympics. The photograph produced by him showed Jordan in a pose which was similar to the photograph created by Nike where Jordan was jumping with the Chicago Skyline in the background. This picture was eventually used for the JUMPMAN logo.

Rentmeester argued that the he retained the copyright over the photograph even though he was working as a contracted photographer. NIKE paid $150 dollars to Rentmeester for two transparencies which were to be used for the purpose of company presentations only. Rentmeester also stated that later NIKE had entered into a two year license agreement, but continued to utilize the picture in advertisements and as the JUMPMAN logo after the date of expiry. Even though the photograph was copyrighted once published, Rentmeester could only sue after December 18, 2014, the date of registration with U.S. Copyright Office.

The U.S. Federal Court while analyzing both photographs stated that Rentmeester’s photograph would only be entitled to thin copyright protection, owing to the fact that there were very few ways the idea in the photograph could be expressed. Secondly, the Court analyzed whether the two photographs were substantially similar. It concluded that there were substantial differences in both pictures, once all the unprotected elements had been weeded out. Besides the backdrop of the red and purple Chicago skyline being different from the grassy hill, blue sky backdrop in Rentmeester’s photograph, the Court pointed out that Michael Jordan’s very pose in both the photographs was also different.

For these reasons the Court dismissed the suit and held that no copyright infringement had taken place.

Contributed by Matisa Majumder.

Sources- here, here, here, here

Related articles section RELATED POSTS

  • Can You Copyright a Product Photo When Design Is Registered? Madras HC Clarifies
  • AI, Copyrights, and Libraries
  • Promodome Trademark Dispute: Ex-Parte Injunction Granted
  • Winning the Race for ‘X1’: A Trademark Dispute Resolved
  • Government of India Constitutes Committee on AI and Copyright
  • Copied Tractor Parts, Not the Drawings? That’s Not Infringement

About the author: Intellepedia

Photo of Intellepedia
Written by

Intellepedia

View all 2725 posts →

Category

Copyrights, Intellectual Property

Tags

Copyright Law, Intellectual Property, Jacobus Rentmeester, jumpman logo, Michael Jordan, Nike, Trademark Dispute, us federal court

Post navigation

Previous Previous post: Mahindra’s Patent Force Fuels the Fire of Genius
Next Next post: Intellectual Property (IP) in India: A Decade of Progress Part 5

Categories

IP News

Trending Posts

  • Trademark Associate Opportunity at BananaIP Counsels
  • Dr Reddy’s Semaglutide Exports to Continue as Court Denies Interim Relief to Novo Nordisk
  • Safeguarding Digital Identity in the age of Deepfakes: An analytical study of AI regulation in India with special reference to Personality Rights jurisprudence
  • Notarized document from a foreign Country must be accepted, says Calcutta High Court in Trademark case
  • Gen AI, Copyrights, and Hybrid Licensing in India Why the Assumptions May Not Sustain the Model
  • Are Employment Agreements sufficient for establishing Proof Of Right?
  • Once the Hearing Is Fixed, the Door Closes on New Evidence in Patent Oppositions
  • Is a Smarter Scooter Frame Patentable? Court Orders Rethink on Inventive Step
  • Inventive Step Misjudged? Delhi HC Revives Trident’s Patent Application
  • From Fine Dining to Trademark Fighting: The Dakshin Breakup Story

Featured Posts

  • Gen AI, Copyrights, and Hybrid Licensing in India Why the Assumptions May Not Sustain the Model
  • Comments and Suggestions on Patent Agent Code of Conduct and Patent Rules Draft
  • AI, Copyrights, and Libraries
  • Mining Hidden IP: Unlocking Untapped Business Value Through Audits
  • Only Copyright Societies Can Issue Licenses: Delhi High Court Strikes a Blow to Music Licensing Practices of PPL, Novex, and Others
  • Indian Patent & Design Statistics Report – 2025

Random Posts

  • Creating Similar Voices with AI Infringes Celebrity Rights, Kumar Sanu Case Confirms
  • The Bounce Trademark Dispute: Generic Marks in Salon Services
  • Alia Bhatt Case: Court Stops Ex-Personal Secretary from Sharing Confidential Info
  • Comments and Suggestions on Patent Agent Code of Conduct and Patent Rules Draft
  • Inventive Step Misjudged? Delhi HC Revives Trident’s Patent Application
  • Shalimar Coconut Oil Bottle Trade Dress Protection and Injunction Confirmed
  • Justice Pratibha M. Singh of Delhi High Court to Chair WIPO’s Advisory Board of Judges
  • Court Orders 10 Lakhs In Damages For Board Game Copyright Infringement
  • You Can’t Live with Liv 333: When Trademark Similarity Turns Costly
  • Come On Barbie, Let Us Stop the Trademark Party

Convert Documents to Accessible Formats

https://www.robobraille.org/

Visit BananaIP Counsels Website

https://www.bananaip.com

Disclaimer

Intellepedia is an independent knowledge sharing initiative of BananaIP. All content on this website is intended solely for general information and educational purposes and does not constitute legal advice or create an attorney client or advocate client relationship. This website and its content do not amount to advertisement, solicitation or inducement of any kind for legal or professional services. All opinions expressed by individual authors are their own and do not reflect the views or positions of BananaIP or any organisation or firm with which they may be affiliated.

We welcome your questions, suggestions and corrections. If you are interested in contributing as an author, please write to us. Intellectual property experts and professionals from all related fields are welcome to participate.

Contribute to Intellepedia

contact@intellepedia.org

Archives

  • Home
  • Patents
  • Trademarks
  • Copyrights
  • Designs
  • Trade Secrets

© 2026 Intellepedia. All Rights Reserved.

Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Accessibility Statement