Nike, Inc. v. Fujian Bestwinn (China) Industry Co., Ltd.
2:16-cv-00311
D. Nev.Feb 29, 2016Background
- Nike sued Fujian Bestwinn alleging importation, offer for sale, sale, distribution, promotion, and advertising of shoes that infringe ten Nike design patents covering Flyknit footwear designs.
- Nike obtained an ex parte temporary restraining and seizure order at the WSA trade show in Las Vegas, seized evidence (laptop, phone, notebook, shoes), and served Bestwinn at its booth; Bestwinn retained many noninfringing designs for promotion.
- Bestwinn acknowledged receipt of service and sent emails expressing willingness to stop selling the accused styles, not import the accused products into the U.S., and to settle; Bestwinn did not file an opposition to Nike’s preliminary injunction motion.
- The court found a pattern by Bestwinn of transiently entering the U.S. at trade shows to offer infringing designs, ignoring cease-and-desist letters, then leaving the U.S., and that Bestwinn lacks a regular U.S. presence.
- The court concluded Nike posted a $25,000 security deposit and that no additional security was required before issuing a preliminary injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Likelihood of success on the merits (ownership/validity/infringement) | Nike: owns valid, enforceable Flyknit design patents; Bestwinn's shoes infringe those patents | Bestwinn did not contest merits (no opposition filed); had communicated willingness to cease sales | Court: Nike likely to succeed on merits; preliminarily found infringement likely and patents owned/valid/enforceable |
| Identification of accused products | Nike: Bestwinn used several model numbers at WSA and failed to consistently distinguish infringing models | Bestwinn: no formal opposition; had listed some willingness to stop those products | Court: identified illustrative model numbers (e.g., 14149, 14260, 14309, BW7100, etc.) and enjoined designs regardless of model number or variations |
| Irreparable harm | Nike: without injunction it will lose control of IP, suffer loss of goodwill, consumer confusion, and difficulty collecting monetary relief due to defendant’s absence from U.S. | Bestwinn: not litigating; had represented it would not import accused products and wished to settle | Court: irreparable harm likely absent injunction; difficulty of money recovery weighed in favor of Nike |
| Balance of harms & public interest | Nike: harm from continued infringement outweighs any burden on Bestwinn; public interest favors enforcing IP and preventing consumer confusion | Bestwinn: could sell many noninfringing designs instead (implicit) | Court: balance tips to Nike; public interest favors injunction; granted preliminary injunction |
Key Cases Cited
(Opinion primarily cited prior district-court decisions without official reporter citations; no authoritative cases with official reporter citations were identified in the text.)