Contract Dispute — NIKE Sports (China) Co., Ltd. and NIKE (Suzhou) Sports Co., Ltd. v. Adidas AG, Adidas (China) Co., Ltd., Adidas (Suzhou) Co., Ltd., and Zhengzhi
— filed by NIKE Sports (China) Co., Ltd. and NIKE (Suzhou) Sports Co., Ltd.

【Case Brief】

    The two plaintiffs are subsidiaries in mainland China established by the world famous sportswear manufacturer and distributor NIKE (hereinafter collectively referred to as “NIKE”). Defendant 1 is a sportswear manufacturer and distributor and defendants 2 and 3 are subsidiaries established by defendant 1 in mainland China (the three defendants are hereinafter collectively referred to as “Adidas”). Defendant 4 is a football player in China.
    On July 1, 2003, in order to enhance its market popularity in China, the plaintiff NIKE executed a Football Player Contract and NIKE Standard Contract Terms (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Sponsor Contracts”) with defendant 4 Zheng Zhi in Shanghai, the term of which would end on December 31, 2007. The Sponsor Contracts provided the following terms: NIKE refers to NIKE (Suzhou) Sports Co., Ltd., its parent company and associate companies, and its licensees, distributors, branch offices and any successor companies; to the extent that the unified wearing standard of the football team is satisfied, Zheng Zhi should wear NIKE products as much as possible on public occasions and attend commercial promotions requested by NIKE; Zheng Zhi may not accept sponsorship from any other sportswear brand or attend any commercial promotion of such other brand. NIKE should pay remuneration to defendant 4 Zheng Zhi on a fixed term. Henceforth, Zheng Zhi wore NIKE products as agreed and attended various commercial promotions, for which NIKE paid him remuneration accordingly.
    In August, 2004, the defendant Adidas, in order to scramble the market share, started to contact Zheng Zhi to negotiate a sponsor contract with him. In the meantime, Zheng Zhi proposed to NIKE to modify the terms of the Sponsor Contracts and increase the remuneration, on which no agreement was made between the two parties.
    On March 9, 2005, when Zheng Zhi went to Japan and played in the Asian Football Club Champions League with his team Shandong Lu Neng, he openly wore Adidas sports shoes.
    On March 18, 2005, Zheng Zhi abruptly sent a letter to NIKE to terminate the Sponsor Contracts. In the meantime, Zheng Zhi openly attended Adidas commercial promotions in Shanghai (Xu Jia Hui area) and Beijing, where he wore Adidas sports shoes and clothes from 2005 to 2006. On May 16, 2006, the defendant Adidas openly claimed in a statement that Zheng Zhi was already a football player that Adidas contracted with. Therefore, NIKE filed a case with the court against both Adidas and Zheng Zhi, requesting to order the four defendants to cease the infringement and bear related liabilities to NIKE.

【Attorney Brief and Court Decision】

 Attorney Brief of the Plaintiffs

During the trial, Watson & Band lawyers filed an attorney brief on behalf of the plaintiffs as follows:
1. NIKE enjoyed the exclusive right to utilize Zheng Zhi’s image to carry out commercial promotions during the term of the Sponsor Contracts and to receive the economic rights and interests incurred therefrom.

    First, NIKE enjoys rights and interests protected under the tort law, which form the basis of the claims for compensation against Adidas and Zheng Zhi. On July 1, 2003, NIKE signed the Sponsor Contracts, and through Zheng Zhi’s performance NIKE gained profits in both tangible sales volume and intangible brand value. These rights and interests formed the basis on which NIKE claimed compensation against Adidas and Zheng Zhi.

2. Adidas contacted Zheng Zhi during the term of the Sponsor Contracts, signed a contract with him, and performed the contract; Adidas and Zheng Zhi constituted contributory infringement.

The evidence submitted revealed the facts as below:
     Back in 2004, Adidas proposed a plan centered around the 2006 World Cup to “dig out” sponsored players from other sports brands at its global sports marketing conference (football topic), with the slogan to “liberate some players from their present sponsor contracts”.
    From August to November, 2004, Zheng Zhi told NIKE several times that Adidas was offering him considerable remuneration and intended to sign contracts with him. Zheng Zhi threatened on this basis that there would be only two choices for NIKE: to considerably increase his remuneration or to terminate the NIKE Sponsor Contracts.
 On November 9, 2004, attorney Yang Jun from Adidas’ law firm sent NIKE an email, alleging that as instructed by Zheng Zhi, he would like to negotiate again with NIKE about the terms under the NIKE Sponsor Contracts; Yang’s request was refused, to which Zheng Zhi showed great dissatisfaction. However, before this date, Zheng Zhi’s sponsor matters were all handled by his broker.
 On December 17, 2004, NIKE wired the remuneration for the second half of the year 2004 to Zheng Zhi, but the payment was returned due to reasons concerning the bank.
 At the end of December, 2004, Zheng Zhi refused to provide his bank account, which would facilitate NIKE to repay the sponsor remuneration or 370,000 RMB to him, with the excuse that he was changing his team club.
 In January, 2005, Zheng Zhi started to wear Adidas sports shoes during the winter exercise camp held by Shandong Lu Neng in Hainan.
 On March 9, 2005, Zheng Zhi represented Shandong Lu Neng and played in the 2005 Asian Champions League. This was his first time wearing Adidas shoes in a non-national team match.
 On March 18, 2005, Zheng Zhi sent NIKE a letter on the termination of the Sponsor Contracts, without stating any cause for such termination.
 In April, 2005, Zheng Zhi signed a contract with Adidas, after which he frequently appeared at Adidas commercial promotions.
 Adidas claimed in 2006 that Zheng Zhi had already signed a contract with Adidas.
    The facts listed above showed that Zheng Zhi had breached the NIKE Sponsor Contracts since August 2004 and that his connection and contract with Adidas constituted violation of said contracts. These breaching conducts conformed to Adidas’ “dig-out” plan and slogan to “liberate some players from their present sponsor contracts”. The “dig-out” played by Adidas made the NIKE Sponsor Contracts unstable and finally caused great damages to NIKE’s lawful rights and interests enjoyed under the contracts.
    Moreover, by actively responding to Adidas, Zheng Zhi was directly benefiting Adidas, and therefore a complete process of infringement by the two was formed. As a result, Zheng Zhi should bear related liabilities for the damages suffered by NIKE.

3. Adidas and Zheng Zhi pursued damages to NIKE’s lawful rights and interests, which showed their bad faith during the contributory infringement.

    First, Adidas and NIKE are two major international sportswear manufacturers and both adopt the mode of sponsoring players on a large scale; Adidas should have a considerable knowledge of the information and rules in this field. Zheng Zhi attended NIKE’s commercial promotions several times in 2003 after signing the contracts with NIKE, so Adidas should have known that Zheng Zhi was a player sponsored by NIKE. Further to this, the rule in this field was that sponsorship provided by one sponsor for a certain player should be exclusive against other sponsors, so Adidas should know that setting up another sponsorship with Zheng Zhi would surely mean that the NIKE Sponsor Contracts could no longer be performed.
    However, in order to grab the “exclusivity” of Zheng Zhi, Adidas signed the contracts with Zheng Zhi, which stopped Zheng Zhi from performing the NIKE Sponsor Contracts and caused damages to NIKE’s lawful rights and interests. It could be seen that for the sake of commercial interests, Adidas had actively pursued the incurrence of such damages to NIKE and showed ill intent during the infringement.
    Second, Zheng Zhi was obviously aware that he had the obligation not to consult with any of NIKE’s competitors about any kind of sponsorship; however, for the sake of higher remuneration, Zheng Zhi contacted Adidas and finally signed contracts with Adidas, which led to damages to NIKE’s lawful rights and interests. As a result, Zheng Zhi also had bad faith in causing damages to NIKE.

4. NIKE suffered great economic losses due to said contributory infringement by Adidas and Zheng Zhi.

    Famous players ensure high commercial value. As is mentioned above, companies like NIKE and Adidas exchange such players’ commercial value into commercial profits by means of exercising “exclusivity” over the players. In this case, the contributory infringement by Adidas and Zheng Zhi caused the NIKE Sponsor Contracts to be no longer performable and therefore NIKE lost its “exclusivity” and the commercial profits incurred therefrom.  Adidas and Zheng Zhi should be liable for such damages.

5. Zheng Zhi was unique and irreplaceable; cause and effect can be established between the contributory infringement by Adidas and Zheng Zhi and the losses suffered by NIKE.

    Zheng Zhi was a top football player in China, whose image was unique and irreplaceable, so the commercial value promised in him was also far higher than that in other players — such value was also unique and irreplaceable. The contracts between Adidas and Zheng Zhi directly led to NIKE’s loss of “exclusivity” in using Zheng Zhi’s image; in the meantime, commercial profits incurred by Zheng Zhi’s performance of sponsor contracts were also illegally transferred from NIKE to Adidas; what was worse, NIKE could not find another substitute player having a similar commercial value to remedy the damages. Based on these, cause and effect can be established between the contributory infringement by Adidas and Zheng Zhi and the damages suffered by NIKE.
    In conclusion of the foresaid issues, we were of the opinion that the three Adidas companies and Zheng Zhi had constituted infringement against NIKE and therefore should be liable for NIKE’s damages incurred therefrom.

6. The three Adidas companies are all qualified defendants in this case.

    Adidas AG, Adidas China and Adidas Suzhou were closely related with respect to company structure, and the three companies were all operating in the domestic market under the brand of Adidas — none of them were distinguished from the other two. In this case, Zheng Zhi was actually representing the whole Adidas brand and the three Adidas companies had all participated in the performance of the Adidas Sponsor Contracts and gained profits therefrom. On this basis, the three Adidas companies had actually formed an interest community where they shared commercial profits brought therefrom and all of them should be liable to a certain extent for the contributory infringement.

 Attorney Brief of the Defendants

Adidas filed its attorney brief as follows:

1. The Sponsor Contracts between Zheng Zhi and NIKE had already been terminated in accordance with the law.
(1) The fundamental obligation of a sponsor under a sponsor contract should be the payment of remuneration to the player. Where NIKE failed to pay the 370,000RMB remuneration for the second half of the year 2004 by December 2004, NIKE had constituted a fundamental breach of the contract.
(2) The main reason for NIKE’s failure to pay said 370,000 RMB remuneration was found in the Beijing case: when NIKE wired the remuneration, the purpose of such remittance was described as a bonus, which was a mistake made by NIKE. With the claim, NIKE was trying to transfer its liability for the prior breach of the contract onto Zheng Zhi.
(3) After the failure in payment, NIKE did not try other means to remedy the defects in its performance of the contracts, so Zheng Zhi had the right to terminate the contracts based on NIKE’s fundamental breach of the contracts. In fact, Zheng Zhi had lawfully terminated the sponsor contracts with NIKE through the termination letter.

2. Adidas and Zheng Zhi did not constitute contributory infringement.
(1) None of the evidence submitted by NIKE could effectively and directly prove that Adidas had induced Zheng Zhi by providing higher profits. The main evidence in this regard submitted by NIKE was only a testimony made by one of NIKE’s employees, who did not appear in court to accept inquiries, so such testimony can not be used as a basis for deciding this case.
(2) The evidence submitted by NIKE could only prove the possibility that Adidas might have induced Zheng Zhi by providing higher profits, but NIKE did not submit any evidence to prove that Adidas actually did the accused inducement. Therefore, NIKE did not complete its burden of proof in this case.
(3) Zheng Zhi’s attendances in the accused commercial promotions were all appointed by the football association as a member of the national football team. Zheng Zhi was only performing his duty as a member of the national team.

3. The three Adidas companies did not form an interest community.
(1) Adidas AG did not have any business operation in China and was not aware of the disputed facts in this case, so it should not be listed as a defendant.
(2) Adidas China and Adidas Suzhou have their respective business scopes and independent calculation and verification systems; they are two independent market entities.
(3) That the three Adidas companies were all highlighting the Adidas brand was an operational strategy of Adidas; Adidas China and Adidas Suzhou were both clearly marking their company names during their business operation and on their products, so there can be no confusion among the consumers in distinguishing them apart.
(4) As a result of the above, Adidas China and Adidas Suzhou did not constitute an interest community as accused by NIKE.

4. Adidas was not aware of the Sponsor Contracts between Zheng Zhi and NIKE before the Beijing case.
(1) Adidas was not aware that NIKE had signed sponsor contracts with Zheng Zhi until NIKE filed the case in Beijing.
(2) The terms under the sponsor contracts between NIKE and Zheng Zhi did not have any binding power on any third party, so Adidas could by no means learn the terms under said sponsor contracts.
(3) Before signing contracts with Zheng Zhi, Adidas had already confirmed with Zheng Zhi that he was not subject to any other sponsor contracts; Adidas had exercised its due diligence in this regard.

Zheng Zhi filed his attorney brief as follows:

1. The Sponsor Contracts between Zheng Zhi and NIKE had already been terminated.
(1) NIKE had not paid any sponsor remuneration to Zheng Zhi since 2005. Nor had Zheng Zhi ever received any sponsor remuneration since then.
(2) Now that NIKE accused Zheng Zhi for breach of the contract and claimed that it had performed the contracts as agreed, NIKE should pay Zheng Zhi remuneration for the years 2005, 2006 and 2007.
(3) The fundamental purpose of the sponsor contract was to ensure the sponsor would pay sponsor remuneration to the player, but the fact was that Zheng Zhi did not receive his remuneration for the second half of the year 2004. Furthermore, it was already found in the Beijing case that the main reason for failure of payment should be attributed to NIKE. As a result, NIKE had already constituted a fundamental breach of the contracts and Zheng Zhi should have the right to terminate the sponsor contracts.

2. The execution of the Adidas Sponsor Contracts between Zheng Zhi and Adidas was in compliance with the law and should be protected by the law.
(1) Zheng Zhi had complete capability for civil conducts; his execution of the contracts with Adidas was at his free will rather than being induced by Adidas.
(2) The sponsor contracts between Zheng Zhi and Adidas were lawful and effective; they should be protected by law and did not infringe NIKE’s rights and interests.
(3) The 8,000,000RMB compensation claimed by NIKE lacked factual basis.
(4) Zheng Zhi’s several attendances at the Adidas commercial promotions accused by NIKE were all appointed by the football association and did not infringe NIKE’s lawful rights and interests.

Court Decision

    Shanghai No.1 Intermediate People’s Court accepted this case on April 19, 2007. After the collegial panel for the case was duly appointed, three hearings were held on April 15, May 6, and November 5, 2008. On July 23, 2009, the court granted a first instance decision as follows:
1. The Defendants Adidas Suzhou and Zheng Zhi should bear related liabilities for compensating damages 200,000RMB suffered by the plaintiff NIKE Suzhou within 10 days after this decision comes into force.
2. The rest of the claims of NIKE Suzhou are all rejected.
3. All claims of NIKE China are rejected.

    The court held that the sponsor contracts between NIKE Suzhou and Zheng Zhi were based on the true and free will of both parties and therefore should be strictly followed and performed. In respect of NIKE Suzhou, although NIKE Suzhou’s payment to Zheng Zhi for the second half of the year 2004 was returned by the bank, this did not negate the fact that NIKE Suzhou’s initiative payment showed its intention of normally performing the contracts. After the payment was returned, NIKE Suzhou initiatively paid individual income tax on behalf of Zheng Zhi, by which NIKE Suzhou’s willingness to continue the payment was clearly expressed; as to the fact that the payment finally failed, the court could not exclude the possibility that Zheng Zhi informed NIKE Suzhou that he would change his team club and asked for suspension of the payment. Moreover, that NIKE Suzhou continued to pay the remunerations for the whole year of 2005 also showed its wish to continue performance of the sponsor contracts and did not stand for its agreement to termination of the contracts. With respect to Zheng Zhi, after payment by NIKE Suzhou was returned, Zheng Zhi never urged payment from NIKE Suzhou, so his intention of not continuing the contracts was comparatively obvious. Before he proposed termination of the contracts, Zheng Zhi did not wear NIKE sports shoes as agreed; instead, he wore Adidas sports shoes without any covering and played in the game; such conduct was obviously in violation of the NIKE Sponsor Contracts. Hence, Zheng Zhi was not willing to perform the NIKE Sponsor Contracts any more, by which his bad faith in breaching the contracts was clearly revealed. Although Zheng Zhi insisted that after he sent the termination letter on March 18, 2005, the sponsor contracts were already terminated, the court held that the termination proposed by Zheng Zhi did not satisfy the condition under the contracts that the contracts could be terminated in writing only after a 30-day period for remedy of breach had expired, and therefore whether or not Zheng Zhi’s proposal of termination could be effective would be subject to whether NIKE Suzhou and Zheng Zhi could reach an agreement thereupon. Judging from NIKE Suzhou’s conducts, discrepancy obviously existed between the parties in this regard, for which Zheng Zhi’s proposal of termination would not certainly come into effect. Before NIKE Suzhou and Zheng Zhi reached an agreement on termination of the contracts, Zheng Zhi could not request exemption from his liabilities for breach of the contracts based on the assumption that the contracts were already terminated.
    Adidas Suzhou and NIKE Suzhou were both companies registered in Suzhou; the companies owning the two brands were both world famous sportswear manufacturers, so Adidas Suzhou should have knowledge that Zheng Zhi was a representative for NIKE products. During Zheng Zhi’s representation of the NIKE brand, the counsel of Adidas proposed re-negotiation to NIKE Suzhou over the remuneration on behalf of Zheng Zhi; after re-negotiation failed, Adidas Suzhou directly signed contracts with Zheng Zhi. Adidas Suzhou stated during the trial of this case that since Zheng Zhi had verbally claimed that he was not subject to any sponsor contract, it then signed the contracts with Zheng Zhi. The court held that as a famous large sportswear manufacturer, with respect to signing sponsor contracts, it was obviously unreasonable that Adidas Suzhou should have signed the contracts based only on verbal warranty by the individual; Adidas Suzhou at least should have communicated with NIKE Suzhou to verify the circumstance. Therefore, the court held that Adidas Suzhou’s statement should not be considered truthful. The court held that Adidas Suzhou’s claim that it had only consulted with Zheng Zhi for two or three days was in conflict with common sense and business practice. With an overall consideration of the aforesaid facts, the court held that ever since Adidas’ counsel proposed re-negotiation on behalf of Zheng Zhi in November 2004, Adidas Suzhou had interfered in the contracts between Zheng Zhi and NIKE Suzhou; from Adidas Suzhou’s refusal to disclose to the court remuneration it paid to Zheng Zhi by reason that this would involve a trade secret, it could be assumed that such remuneration might be higher than that paid by NIKE Suzhou, so Adidas Suzhou had bad faith in inducing Zheng Zhi and had actually done so to cause Zheng Zhi’s breach of the contracts.
    In conclusion, it could be decided that Adidas Suzhou had violated the principle of honesty and credibility; it had intentionally induced Zheng Zhi to breach the NIKE Sponsor Contracts by providing higher remuneration so as to execute the Adidas sponsor contracts with Zheng Zhi. The conducts of Adidas Suzhou and Zheng Zhi caused NIKE Suzhou to lose the anticipatory commercial profits during the remaining term of the sponsor contracts, so the two parties should bear related liabilities for the damages suffered by NIKE Suzhou. The compensation amount claimed by the plaintiffs did not have direct factual basis in support, so the court would not adopt this claim. In the meantime, the court noticed that obviously the damages suffered by NIKE Suzhou would be difficult to specify. With an overall consideration of all these factors, the court finally determined that Adidas Suzhou and Zheng Zhi should compensate 200,000RMB to NIKE Suzhou.
    Adidas AG and Adidas China were two independent legal entities with respect to Adidas Suzhou and no evidence could reveal that these two companies had also conducted infringement, so Adidas AG and Adidas China should not be liable for the damages. Likewise, NIKE China was not a contractual party to the disputed sponsor contracts and did not suffer any loss of profits under the contracts, so it should not be entitled to compensation. Consequently, the court decided to reject the claims of NIKE China and the claims of NIKE Suzhou against Adidas AG and Adidas China.

【Our Thoughts and Analysis】

    This case is brand new to judicial practice in China mainly in the following two aspects:
    First, although sponsorship by the sportswear manufacturers involved in this case came into being back in the 1970s in the United States and Europe, such sponsorship has been rapidly developing in recent years — it is a new industry in China. In relation to the rapid development of sportswear sponsorship, the formulation of relevant regulations and rules seems a few steps behind. From the legal perspective, adjudication and legislation are both blank with respect to sportswear sponsorship. To some extent, NIKE’s filing of this case was actually intended to push the formulation of rules and to regulate order in this industry.
    Second, the legal relation in this case is also new. NIKE claimed in this case that Adidas had infringed its lawful rights and interests by inducing Zheng Zhi to break his sponsor contracts with NIKE; in other words, the third party had unduly infringed the victim’s rights under the contracts. NIKE’s rights and interests under the contracts were infringed, but NIKE did not claim liability for breach of the contracts against the other party; instead, NIKE sued the third party and the other party of the contracts for contributory infringement, which was finally supported by the court and became the first such case in China in this regard.
    When handling this new type of case, we encountered considerable difficulties and obstructions:
    First, since no previous adjudications or special law provisions were available for this case, we cited principle provisions on infringement and coexisting liabilities under the General Provisions of Civil Law and the Contract Law as our legal basis. Therefore, how to closely connect the facts of this case with such principle provisions so as to make a combination of the two the basis for deciding this case became the first difficulty we encountered.
    Second, sportswear sponsorship is a rather independent industry with few participants. In the sportswear sponsorship industry in the United States and Europe, rules formed through practice such as “three in one team” and “exceptional circumstances when individual sponsor brand conflicts with team sponsor brand” effectively regulated orderly competition and operation in this industry. Such rules were among the significant standards for determining whether Adidas and Zheng Zhi had bad faith in the accused infringement. As a result, how to completely and effectively introduce the rules in the field into this case and let them be the basis on which the judge would exercise discretion became the second difficulty we encountered.
    Third, the special legal relation involved in this case was the greatest difficulty we encountered. Zheng Zhi unilaterally breached the NIKE Sponsor Contracts and the contracts were binding only upon the contracting parties, so our claim against Adidas for Zheng Zhi’s breach of the contracts was obviously in conflict with said binding power. On the other hand, as is known to all, the right enjoyed by contracting parties is the creditor’s right, which has a specific object; in the civil law theory of China, such a right can not be an object of infringement, so if we directly claimed against Adidas for its infringement on NIKE’s creditor’s right, we very possibly would be rejected by the court. As a result, how to break the binding power of the contracts and claim against Adidas based on Zheng Zhi’s breach of the contracts and how to turn the creditor’s right into an absolute right that could be object of an infringement was a great challenge.
    Finally, when Adidas induced Zheng Zhi to breach the contracts, all contacts were made in private, as a result of which NIKE could hardly obtain any direct evidence to prove the communications between Adidas and Zheng Zhi and their intention on the infringement. Therefore, how to prove Adidas’ bad faith became the fourth difficulty for the plaintiffs to complete their burden of proof in this case.
    In response to the foresaid difficulties, we set up a special litigation team and carried out evidence collection and legal research on the relevant theories, laws and regulations. On this basis, we further reviewed and analyzed the facts, the relevant laws and regulations and the legal relations in this case, and then worked out an effective litigation plan and a series of measures to take.
    We first identified NIKE’s right in this case: NIKE’s claim in this case was not based on the creditor’s right under the sponsor contracts, but on the increased sales volume and enhanced brand value brought by Zheng Zhi’s performance of the contracts. In this way, we converted the contractual creditor’s right into actual profits and values and successfully turned the relative right into an absolute right of economic profits.
    Second, we determined the structure of the infringing conduct and respectively defined the nature of the conducts of Zheng Zhi and Adidas: Zheng Zhi’s unilateral breach of the NIKE Sponsor Contracts constituted a breach of the contracts, which also infringed NIKE’s lawful rights and interests based on performance of the contracts; co-existing liabilities for both breach of contracts and infringement was therefore generated. In this circumstance, NIKE had the right to choose to let Zheng Zhi be liable for his breach of the contracts or to let Zheng Zhi be liable for his infringement on NIKE’s rights and interests. What we chose in the end was liability for the infringement.
    That Adidas unduly contacted Zheng Zhi, provided higher remuneration and assisted Zheng Zhi in breaching the NIKE Sponsor Contracts during the term of said contracts also infringed NIKE’s legal rights and interests under the contracts. Afterwards, where Adidas was led to believe that Zheng Zhi had terminated the NIKE Sponsor Contracts simply by Zheng Zhi’s oral assertion, Adidas had not exercised due diligence and had ill intention therein and therefore had also constituted infringement. According to the provisions under the General Principles of the Civil Law on contributory infringement, Adidas and Zheng Zhi had constituted contributory infringement and therefore NIKE’s claim against Adidas and Zheng Zhi was in conformity with the law. Correspondingly, the breach conducted by Zheng Zhi in this case was only the means by which Adidas conducted the infringement; the right claimed by NIKE was a right under the tort law rather than a contractual right, so NIKE’s claim against Adidas should not be subject to the binding power of the NIKE Sponsor Contracts.
    Finally, we arranged and codified the evidence into a chain in which a series of seemingly unrelated facts were connected with and in concert with each other; such an evidence chain sufficiently proved Adidas’ bad faith in this case. In addition, we also summarized the practice and rules in the sportswear sponsorship field and the long-time competition between NIKE and Adidas, and further supplemented examples in support. All of these formed a complete, detailed and powerful set of background materials, which provided a platform for the court when it reviewed this case and finally made the fair decision.

RELATED LAYWER: