Bodybuilding.com vs. Jim Stoppani: An IP Lawyer’s Analysis

A couple weeks ago we wrote an article about the Bodybuilding.com vs. Jim Stoppani lawsuit (which is now settled).

In that post, we mentioned that the was time to bring out the big guns – so the specialists are here to make comment.

Introducing Nick Gingo from Renner Otto Intellectual Property Law in Ohio:

Nick Gingo has been an intellectual property lawyer in Cleveland, OH for eight years as of 2016, and is a partner with the Renner Otto Law Firm. He typically deals with trademark and patent issues, and has litigated in court.

Mike interviewed him on November 28, 2016 to discuss the ongoing Bodybuilding.com vs. Jim Stoppani / PhD Fitness lawsuit. Nick was able to unearth some critically important documents that we’d missed – so make sure you download them (especially the Joint Development Agreement, or JDA) so that you can follow along:

Additional Documents Pertaining to the YouTube Discussion

The general consensus… this contract is a total mess!

This is a very convoluted case, because while the ownership of much IP was defined, the actual IP itself was never defined! Therefore, it’s quite up in the air as to who owns and is “licensing” the actual JYM brand.

Mike’s words here: this was a terribly written contract that should never have seen the light of day.

The Joint Development Agreement gives more weight to Stoppani’s side of the case, but it is still the furthest thing from a slam-dunk case.

We’ll of course keep this case up to date over time because there are several key decisions that the judge must make in late 2016 or early 2017 that will determine the direction of this suit.

Thank you to Nick of Renner Otto

If you enjoyed this video, then never hesitate to contact Nick at RennerOtto.com when you have trademark or patent needs. This case underscores the necessity of a quality contract and bulletproof trademarks, and the team at Renner Otto can help get you on your way with that.

Thank you Nick!