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)
  • Summary of Indian Trademark Cases of 2019
  • Morality and Patentability of Sexual Inventions
  • 2019 Intellectual Property Statistics in India – Up, Up and away!

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

PS2 Copyright Case: AR Rahman vs Dagar Brothers — Delhi HC Orders Credit, ₹2 Cr Deposit

New Geographical Indications Registrations in India (April 2024–March 2025): 23 Additions Across States

Patent Rejection for Vehicle Monitoring System reversed by Court

Decades of Himalaya’s Goodwill Shield PILEX Trademark from Deceptive Use

BananaIP Counsels Invites Applications for the Position of Trademark Associate

Wipro Secures Court Victory Against Trademark Infringement

Indian IP Office Announces Stakeholder Meetings on Draft CRI Guidelines

Numerical Trademarks and Their Registrability: A Review of the 2929 Case

Court Affirms Controller’s Refusal: Invention deemed obvious to a person skilled in the art

Captain Morgan Prevails Over Captain Blue in Trade Mark Dispute

Failure to consider Post-filing data violates natural Justice, reiterates Calcutta High Court

Supreme Court Upholds Free Speech in Wikimedia Case, Sets Aside Takedown Order

Revocation is Distinct from Invalidity Defence and Survives Patent Expiry, rules Delhi High Court

What Have You Been Smoking? Personal bias has no place in Tobacco patent evaluation

AbbVie’s Patent Refusal Upheld over Impermissible Shift from Treatment to Product Claims

Can an Oversight by a Patent Agent Be a Ground for Abandoned Patent Application Revival?

Digital KYC Accessibility and IP Law: Enabling Independent IP Practice for Persons with Disabilities

US Court Affirms Human Authorship Requirement for Copyright Protection

Generative AI Training and Copyright: U.S. Copyright Office’s Pre-Publication Report

The Business of Copyrights – Register Your Interest in Dr. Kalyan Kankanala’s Upcoming IP Book

World IP Day 2025: Wishing You a Soulful and Musical Intellectual Property Celebration

Trademark Opposition Fails Without Territorial Use Evidence

Isha Foundation Secures Interim Relief in Defamation Case, Next Hearing in September

Interim Relief to FDC in KROMALITE Trademark Dispute

Compulsory Music License for Events: Delhi HC Rules Against PPL’s Licensing Practices

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. 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