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 Posts:

  • Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020 – Proposed Amendments (2021)
  • Cool interim order for ITW's pre-conditioned air patent, but Competitor's airport deals allowed to continue
  • Intellectual Property Statistics 2020 (India)
  • 2019 Intellectual Property Statistics in India – Up, Up and away!
  • Summary of Indian Trademark Cases of 2019
  • EC Notice to Makers of Modi Film, EU Approves Copyright Directive, Nike Wins 'Jumpman' Suit, AI Music, and more

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

Trending IP Articles

Patent Application for System to Locate Users on P2P Networks Refused under Section 3(k)

Who Bears the Patent Credibility Challenge Burden?

Technical Delay Cannot Lead to Trademark Opposition Abandonment

Coca-Cola Patent Appeal: Delhi HC Emphasizes Need for Reasoned Inventive Step Analysis

Pisco Grape Spirit GI Battle: Delhi High Court Rules in Peru vs Chile Case

Court Awards ₹50 Lakh to GSP Crop Science in Patent Infringement Case Over Agrochemical Formula

Patented Biologics and Section 104A: No Process Disclosure Without Proving Product Identity

Trademark Registrations are Pan-India

Delhi High Court Revives Crocs’ Passing Off Suits Against Bata, Liberty Over Shape Trademark

Astrology Meets IP – Zodiac Strategies for the Week Ahead (July 5–11)

Madras High Court Orders Fresh Review of Shaperon’s Skin Disorder Patent Rejection

Delhi High Court Allows Claim Amendment During Appeal in Albemarle Patent Case

Fake Volvos Got Legally Grilled: A Trademark Tale Gone Off Route

Atomberg fans or Luker fans, whose “fan” are you?

Delay in Copyright Lawsuit Costs Plaintiff Urgent Relief and Mediation Exemption

ORSL vs ERSI: Delhi Court’s Juicy ruling in Johnson & Johnson ORSL Trademark Infringement Case

Astrology Meets IP – Zodiac Strategies for the Week Ahead (July 13–20, 2025)

Dolby v. Lava: INR 20 Crore Deposit Ordered in SEP patent infringement case

PAAKASHALA Brand Wins Trademark Injunction: Karnataka HC Rules Against Descriptive Use Defense

Mining Hidden IP: Unlocking Untapped Business Value Through Audits

Court delivers an ‘Iconic’ ruling in JOLLY RANCHER trademark dispute

Visit BananaIP Counsels Website

https://www.bananaip.com

Disclaimer

Intellepedia is an independent knowledge-sharing initiative. All opinions expressed by individual authors are their own and do not reflect the views or positions of 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

© 2025 Intellepedia. All Rights Reserved.

Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Accessibility Statement