Blackmon v. Iverson

324 F.Supp. 2d 602 (2003)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P met D and his family in 1987. D was a young high school student who showed tremendous promise as an athlete. P maintained a close personal friendship and relationship with D and his family from 1987 forward. At various times in their friendship, P provided D and his family with financial support, allowed D and his family members to live in P's home, and provided other support to D such as picking him up from school and providing him with a tutor. In July of 1994, P suggested that D use 'The Answer' as a nickname in the summer league basketball tournaments in which D would be playing. P told D that d would be 'The Answer' to all of the National Basketball Association's ('NBA's') woes. P and D also discussed the fact that the nickname 'The Answer' had immediate applications as a label, brand name, or other type of marketing slogan for use in connection with clothing, sports apparel, and sneakers. The parties also discussed using 'The Answer' as a logo. Later that evening, P promised to give D twenty-five percent of all proceeds the merchandising of products sold in connection with the term 'The Answer.' The parties understood that in order to 'effectuate D's agreement to compensate' P, D would have to be drafted by the NBA. P thereafter began to invest significant time, money, and effort in the refinement of the concept of 'The Answer.' P continued to develop and refine the marketing strategy for the sale of merchandise, such as athletic wear and sneakers, in connection with the term 'The Answer.' P retained a graphic designer to develop logos bearing 'The Answer' as well as conceptual drawings for sleeveless t-shirts, adjustable hats, and letterman jackets for sale in connection with 'The Answer.' In 1994 and 1995, during D's freshman year at Georgetown University and the summer thereafter, there were numerous conversations regarding D's progress in refining the marketing concept for 'The Answer.' In 1996, just prior to the NBA draft, D advised P that D intended to use the phrase 'The Answer' in connection with a contract with Reebok for merchandising of athletic shoes and sports apparel. D repeated his promise to pay P twenty-five percent of all proceeds from merchandising goods that incorporated 'The Answer' slogan or logo. D's lawyers wrote to P and stated that, despite the fact that P and D reached an agreement regarding 'The Answer,' D would not use 'The Answer' because it was already a federally protected trademark. Many months later, Reebok began manufacturing, marketing, and selling a line of athletic sportswear and sneakers using and incorporating 'The Answer' slogan and logo. D repeated his promise to pay P. In the fall of 1998, D advised P that D had instructed his attorney to account for the number of 'The Answer' units sold by Reebok and to distribute proceeds from those units to P. Eventually by 2000, things fell apart. P sued D for a breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and misappropriation. (The casebook only addresses the contract action).