Nike v. YUMS: Covenant Not to Sue Prevents Jurisdiction

Submitted by Beth Hutchens on January 15, 2013 - 7:15am

The Court went to the actual terms of the Covenant to determine if Nike had met this very tough burden burden. In this case, though, Nike did. The terms of the Covenant were unconditional and irrevocable. They prohibited Nike from making any claim or demand, and even went so far as to shield YUMS’ distributors and customers. This coupled with the fact that YUMS did not provide a shred of evidence that it had plans to market a shoe that the Covenant wouldn’t cover was enough to convince the Court that the possibility of future harm was just too remote here.

glqxz9283 sfy39587stf02 mnesdcuix8
sfy39587stf03
sfy39587stp12