Reebok loses another round in battle with Nike over Tebow gear

AP

Last week Nike was granted a temporary restraining order barring Reebok from selling apparel with Tim Tebow’s name on it. Today Reebok went before a judge and asked for that restraining order to be lifted, but the judge sided with Nike.

When Tebow was traded from the Broncos to the Jets, Reebok quickly went into action on printing Jets jerseys and T-shirts with Tebow’s name on them. Reebok says it sold about 6,000 jerseys and 25,000 T-shirts before the judge ordered a halt to the sales.

It’s not clear why Reebok thought it had the right to sell shirts with Tebow’s name on them. Reebok’s group licensing agreement with the NFL Players’ Association has expired, Nike is now the exclusive maker of NFL jerseys, and Tebow has a personal licensing deal with Nike as well. Nike’s original complaint against Tebow last week said that an “authorized representative of Tebow” sent a letter to Reebok informing the company that it had no right to use Tebow’s name on any Reebok products and that Reebok did not respond.

But the judge has made it clear that Reebok can’t sell Tebow apparel. Any remaining Reebok gear with Tebow’s name on it will never see the inside of a sporting goods store.

39 responses to “Reebok loses another round in battle with Nike over Tebow gear

  1. They should claim that they were ordered by God in a dream to sell Tebow jerseys. Or maybe they can use that burning bush trick again. Be Creative.

  2. According to the Islamic calender, Reebok still has 578 years before their contact expires in 2012!

  3. So remove the name plate and sell them to Ross/Marshalls or better yet seek permission to donate them to charities

  4. But if some guy with a blog uses a photo of the Reebok logo, they’ll sue him for trademark infringement.

    Reebok has no business complaining about this.

  5. jcspiggle says:
    Apr 4, 2012 5:16 PM
    There are going to be thousands of Tebow fans in Ghana.
    ——————————————————–
    damn, now i feel even worse for them.

  6. jcspiggle says:
    Apr 4, 2012 5:16 PM
    There are going to be thousands of Tebow fans in Ghana.

    Trust me on this one bra, people in Ghana dont need Tebow shirts thanks.

  7. First off, who the heck is buying these things?

    2nd off, did reebok make these shirts before 4/1? If so, I think they still have the right to sell them.

    I thought there was an agreement that they could sell the rest of their inventory.

  8. Reebok’s claim is that Tebow was traded a few hours before their contract with the NFL expired so they thought they would print however many tshirts and jerseys they could until the contract expired and sell them.

  9. and yet the NFL is getting away with selling Reebok gear on their website…for full price of course.

  10. Ah, the addition of the sports apparel giants to the NFL added so much class, didn’t it?

    Who would have ever thought that vultures such as these would stoop so low as to make the NFL look like clowns for hiring either of them in the first place? Of course, we all know why they did it; league integrity takes a backseat to the green, baby!

  11. cliffordc05 says:

    What was Reebok’s claim in court? They must have made some sort of argument.

    ______________________________
    I wondered the same thing, so I looked up Reebok’s opposition to Nike’s motion for a restraining order. Reebok essentially argues:

    (1) Reebok had the right to sell these jersey’s under the “sell-off” provision of the Licensing Agreement (Note: that argument is clearly disingenous, because the “sell-off” provision allows Reebok to sell existing inventory, not create new inventory and sell it. Reebok even clumsily calls this “leftover inventory.” Yeah, right, leftover in the sense that they just manufactured it.)

    (2) Keith Gordon of the NFL Players Inc. told Reebok it was ok (Note: does not matter what Gordon says because it was not his right to give away and Gordon denies he said it was ok anyway).

    Hope Reebok gets absolutely slammed for these shenanigans. Serves them right for selling jerseys for $300 that can be manufactured for $15.

  12. So hundred profit per jersey is 600000 and 15 per tshirt is another 375000. So for a cool mill in profit on what they sold they eat the rest and pay millions in legal fees. Good call by Reebok

  13. I’ve heard in the past that the pre-made Super Bowl Champion shirts the loser team produces, but never gets to wear end up being donated to third world countries. Not sure if it’s true or not but that’s where we may see these jerseys end up.

  14. Gotta love corporate greed… How you trying to sell NFL apparel when your contract ended 4 days ago?

    ——————-

    Yeah because Nike isn’t greedy. They just sling shoes in your local foot locker for $200 that cost them about 6 bucks to make (including the cost of payment to the children who made them).

  15. Reebok should just keep them in the country where the jerseys were handcrafted by 7 year old children… The Thailand ! They worship him over there too!

  16. Hope Reebok gets absolutely slammed for these shenanigans. Serves them right for selling jerseys for $300 that can be manufactured for $15.

    ————————

    Those $300 jerseys are the authentics. What most NFL fans buy are the replicas. And you actually think Nike will charge any less? Go to your local Foot Locker and have a gander at the price tags on Nike gear. They cut you or I no breaks in the marketplace. Nor will they in the future.

  17. Now that’s Reebok is out of the NFL uni business, they need to go away (and take Timmie with them).

  18. Yes these greedy companies should sell their stuff for less then what the market is willing to pay.
    Like every one of us would not leave our current job if another company offered us the same job at better pay. Nope wouldn’t do that because to take what someone is willing to pay you would be greedy.

    They sell these things for $300 because for some odd reason people buy them.

    And you really think the cost to make the item is the only cost involved in getting it sold?

    If Reebok’s contract had not expired before the trade, and the contract allowed for them to sell existing inventory, and the contract did not state existing inventory as of a certain date prior to the contract expiration, they have a point.
    If it is wrong to create existing inventory 4 hours before it expires, is it wrong to create it 24 hours before? 2 days before? 5 days before? 1 week? A month? 1 month, 1 week, 3 days, 12 hours and 15 minutes before the contract expires?
    Exactly when was Reebok supposed to stop making jersey’s?

    I wonder how many of you calling these two companies greedy actually own them in your 401K or mutual funds?

  19. Praise Jesus and baby Jesus that he isn’t a Bronco and the circus is no longer in town. Amen

  20. go to china, and they will make any jersey with any logo, and won’t care about any trademark….and then somehow they all end up in your local wal-mart.

  21. “Apr 4, 2012 5:01 PM
    Gotta love corporate greed”

    Well that’s the point of corporations. If you were a stockholder of Reebok, wouldn’t you want them to try to make more money?

  22. Of course, we all know why they did it; league integrity takes a backseat to the green, baby!
    Hope Reebok gets absolutely slammed for these shenanigans.
    Now that’s Reebok is out of the NFL uni business, they need to go away (and take Timmie with them).

    WTF are people talking about? You’re mad because Reebok is going to make money and Nike isn’t? Nike wasn’t going to make a Tebow jersey?

  23. This is sick.

    Are you telling me 12 year old children in a third world country were working away sewing at $1.27 cents per hour, 15 hours a day for nothing?

    I am sure they are devastated that their work will not be appreciated and worn with pride.

  24. doe22us says:

    Trust me on this one bra, people in Ghana dont need Tebow shirts thanks.

    ————————————–

    First time posting on the internet? Bra!

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!