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
  • Government of India Constitutes Committee on AI and Copyright
  • No Copyright in a Golf Swing of Ideas
  • Copy Paste Creativity Fails the Originality Test
  • Images Copyright and AI Getty Vs. Stable Diffusion

About the author: Intellepedia

Photo of Intellepedia
Written by

Intellepedia

View all 2625 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

  • Senior Trademark Associate Opening for Professionals with 5+ Years of Trademark Experience
  • AI Inventorship and the DABUS Refusal in India: Patent Opponent’s Submissions in the Patent Office Order
  • No Reasons, No Refusal - and No Absolute Bar Anymore: Bombay HC on Atomic Energy & Nuclear Patent Rejections
  • Delhi HC Orders Xiaomi to Pay ₹272 Crore in Standard Essential Patent (SEP) Dispute
  • Inventorship of DABUS in India: Can an AI System Be the True and First Inventor?
  • Patent Rights Protected Despite NBA Approval Delay: Fresh Examination Directed
  • Isha and Sadhguru: Jurisdiction and Defamation in the Age of Online Content
  • 10 Day IP Practice Courses to Build Practice Ready Professionals for an AI Enabled Practice
  • Seeing Red: Calcutta High Court Upholds Exide's Trade Dress Injunction Against Amaron
  • Captcha Blocks, Accessibility Knocks: Will CGPDTM Open the Door?

Featured Posts

  • Delhi HC Orders Xiaomi to Pay ₹272 Crore in Standard Essential Patent (SEP) Dispute
  • Copyright Enforcement, Quick Court Orders, and the Rise of Intimidatory Tactics
  • Design Is Not a Shield: Delhi High Court on Patent Infringement in the Packaging Industry
  • Patent Attorneys: From Strategic Professionals to Ordinary Vendors? The Changing Soul of India’s Patent Ecosystem
  • Breaking Beams, Breaking Records: Delhi High Court Awards ₹152 Crore in Antenna Patent Infringement Suit Against Rosenberger
  • Artificial Intelligence in IP Practice: Managing Psychological Trauma, Stress, and Anxiety in a Changing Landscape
  • Wanted Dead or Alive: Delhi High Court Holds Patent Revocation Survives Expiry and Section 107 Defence
  • Safeguarding Digital Identity in the age of Deepfakes: An analytical study of AI regulation in India with special reference to Personality Rights jurisprudence
  • 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

Random Posts

  • 10 Day IP Practice Courses to Build Practice Ready Professionals for an AI Enabled Practice
  • Can Non-Use of a Trademark Fuel a Passing Off Claim? Delhi High Court Says No
  • Employment First, IPL Later, Copyright Nowhere
  • Patent Attorneys: From Strategic Professionals to Ordinary Vendors? The Changing Soul of India’s Patent Ecosystem
  • "Will You Marry Me" Twice Not After a Copyright Assignment
  • Shatrughan Sinha and the Legal Fight Against Digital Impersonation
  • Breaking Beams, Breaking Records: Delhi High Court Awards ₹152 Crore in Antenna Patent Infringement Suit Against Rosenberger
  • Shalimar Coconut Oil Bottle Trade Dress Protection and Injunction Confirmed
  • Trademark Associate Opportunity at BananaIP Counsels
  • No Copyright in a Golf Swing of Ideas

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