Law Case Study on Nike vs Under Armor Trade mark case

Case Number 1:13-cv-00571

Court Maryland federal court

Case Trademark infringement by Nike company

District Court of Maryland


Plaintiff: Under Armour company

Defendant: Nike Company

Dating back to 1998 Under Armour company has been using the trademark “I Will” this mark became the company’s symbol for its brands(Singh, 2013). The company used it in packaging, billboards, store displays and television and the internet advertisements. The mark was also registered to be used in men’s, women’s and children’s wear in 2000. The trademark was also to cover seven additional applications. In spite of Nike company knowing of the use of “I Will” by Under Armour company it still went ahead to use it, this caused confusion among clients and customers of known sporting goods companies. Due to this confusion, Nike company has made a lot of profit, and this does not bring fair competition among traders.

The Nike’s logo “I Will” had was in block, and it was superimposed over the image of athlete training and playing sport

Nike company also had trademark with the phrase “I Will protect my home court” which was superimposed over the image of a basketball player

The other similar phrase used by Nike company was “I Will Finish What I Started” which was superimposed on a man’s picture attempting a slum dunk(Singh, 2013).

Issue: Under Armour seeks damages and the court injunction to prevent Nike from continuing to use the phrase or a similar substantial slogan.


The time of complaint did not officially register found the decision for Nike company as per claimed infringement on the trademark.


Case filed by the corporation for the violation of the trademark making them underdogs does not hold. Consumers are free to make a choice on what to buy and from where to purchase it(Singh, 2013). Because by 2012 capital amount of Nike company was over Under Amour company was simply on the fact that Nike company was already strong campaign than Under Amour company. Due to Nike active campaign, they overtook the company.

Case filed by Under Armour company was on 2012 by this time their trademark was not yet officially registered, and this does not authenticate the brand name to be theirs.

Under Armour filing on brand name fall under class35 (Advertising, Business, and Retail services) which focuses on retail services both online and offline, this raises the question that their trademark does not cover advertising campaign.

Under Armour company claims that they can compete in marketplaces and field by being innovative and changing their products. A motor that Nike company proved by being innovative, they produced quality products.

Failure by Under Armour company to improve their marketing strategies and the quality of the product has cost them on their market capital, and this could not be blamed on other businesses(Singh, 2013).


As per the case, it is interesting that company files a case against other companies using its logo even before its company officially registers the logo. I find Under Armour company complain not valid as fact Nike makes a significant profit before it files the case meaning it is not the logo itself that attract the consumers, but it is the liking of the product of the company based on the quality.Although Nike had a similar phrase on its logo, the words inscribed on images that not only make it different to Under Armour’s but also promote their sale. Arguably the marketers failed Under Armour in sales promotion(Singh, 2013).



Singh, S. (2013). Under Armour’s Lawsuit Against Nike: Worth Breaking A Sweat?. Journal of Business Case Studies (Online), 9(6), 429.