English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Trademark law provides owners of legally protected marks with a set of legal claims against unauthorized users. Law and economics and brand equity theories rationalize the system of trademarks. Meanwhile, game theory explains why trademark rights must be legally protected and how parties in sport trademark litigation make decisions in anticipation of the opponents’ expected course of action. Four game settings rationalize the utility of trademarks and showcase parties’ strategic moves in trademark litigation: (1) prisoners’ dilemma, (2) game of chicken, (3) sequential game, and (4) game of brinkmanship. Focusing on the  Already v. Nike  and  Forever 21 v. Adidas  trademark litigation cases, this study explores the interactive dynamics between parties and the factors associated with the parties’ decision-making during the process of litigation.

A Theoretical Explanation of Sport Trademark Litigation: Already v. Nike and Forever 21 v. Adidas