womens white leather sneakers nike | The Bank-Breaking Sneaker Lawsuits of 2023 (So Far!)
Ding ding ding: the gloves are off and the sneakers are laced – 2023 has been an unmitigated cluster [redacted] in the courtroom. Seemingly everyone is in the litigation crosshairs, from beloved Harajuku label to resale heavyweights , and there’s enough legal paperwork to compromise cloud storage. Hell, even shareholders are cannibalising their own. All these big numbers got you spooked? Make sure to follow up with our completely unsolicited – and entirely necessary – advice on how to get sued by the likes of Nike.
A Bathing Ape Suits Up
Well, it finally happened: Nike sued BAPE. Why it took so long will always remain one of the sneaker industry’s great mysteries, but this year the Swoosh took aim at Nigo’s beloved Ura-Harajuku label, calling into question several of their popular silhouettes.
In the lawsuit, Nike stipulated that the Japanese imprint had been plagiarising some of Nike’s most recognisable sneakers, including the Air Force 1, Dunk and Air Jordan 1 – three bestsellers.
Originally reported by Reuters, The Manhattan federal lawsuit stated that BAPE’s footwear business ‘revolves around copying Nike’s iconic designs’ and that some of the silhouettes are ‘near verbatim’ copies.
In February, BAPE issued their first response to the lawsuit. BAPE’s legal team requested that the complaint be dismissed by Nike, as revealed by a letter notifying the court of a pre-motion conference submitted to New York’s Southern District Court on Friday, as shared by .
The letter includes further details on the lengthy 14-year dispute, detailing meetings in 2009 during which Nike reportedly objected to BAPE’s sneaker designs and proposed a licencing agreement.
BAPE lawyers state that Nike have ‘repeatedly failed to identify in detail the nature of its alleged rights in the overall look of its sneakers.’ Furthermore, it’s stated that ‘Nike’s in-house counsel and Nike’s V.P. of footwear flew to Japan to meet with BAPE’s leadership to object to BAPE’s sneaker designs as purportedly infringing Nike’s trade dress. Following these two meetings, Nike presented BAPE with a proposed agreement that would require BAPE to stop selling its BAPE STA sneakers’. BAPE rejected the agreement, as per emails. Nike reportedly dropped the matter in 2009.
Then, the letter states, ‘Three years later, in 2012, Nike introduced its new in-house counsel to BAPE, indicating that he wanted to further discuss Nike’s concerns regarding the BAPE STA sneakers. But Nike’s new in-house counsel never contacted BAPE.’
Uh Oh, Baby
nike air walks for men on netflix schedule 2015, by corkys elite sandals on ebay They’ve now found themselves embroiled in legal troubles once again, thanks to another lawsuit over their ‘Wavy Baby’ shoe.
In April 2022, the guerrilla marketing moguls released their ‘Wavy Baby’ sneaker – a model looking eerily similar to a . Unsurprisingly, the shortly after the reveal, demanding that MSCHF be forbidden to advertise or sell the ‘Wavy Baby’. Of course, MSCHF being MSCHF, the brand went ahead and shipped out their infringing product. Now, another lawsuit has just been filed accusing the brand and its founder of mens competition, civil conspiracy, and infringing on a trademark of .
WaveyBaby is a ‘lifestyle streetwear brand’ founded in 2020 who create a plethora of streetwear and loungewear apparel. According to The Fashion Law, MSCHF were completely aware of the trademark ahead of the release of their ‘Wavy Baby’. WaveyBaby stated, ‘immediately upon learning of MSCHF’s involvement in this matter, WaveyBaby sent a cease-and-desist letter to the crowd via its counsel on or about April 12, 2022.’ After receiving the cease-and-desist, MSCHF allegedly ‘pressed forward and continued to aggressively market’.
Following the exchange of communications where both parties tried to reach a resolution, MSCHF and WaveyBaby have been ‘unable to agree on an appropriate resolution’, resulting in the apparel brand filing the trademark lawsuit.
StockX in the Crosshairs
The Nike vs StockX lawsuit got even spicier in 2023, with new court documents revealing that StockX sold 38 fake Nike shoes to a customer between March and July last year.
Turns out that the individual who acquired the shoes was actually a reseller and spoke to , a well-known figure in the sneaker space. According to his Tweet, ‘He bought many University Blue, Mocha, and Hyper Royal on StockX when the market price had dropped with the intent of holding and flipping later. 38 of them were fake.’
Additionally, according to Sockjig, ‘These 3 sneakers in particular had very good quality fakes flood the market in summer of 2022, which is why the market had dipped on them. And StockX, allegedly, had a tough time authenticating them.’
Interestingly, despite StockX changing its policy in November 2022 to read ‘we are unable to offer returns, exchanges, or swaps,’ the reseller was able to return all his fake pairs for a full refund.
Following the allegations, StockX issued the following statement to :
‘While we can’t comment on pending litigation, we are confident in our legal defenses and have continuously supplied appropriate information in a timely manner. We stand by our verification process as one of the first and best in the industry, and in 2022 alone, rejected more than 330K products worth nearly $100M.
StockX also has a Buyer Promise in place, which is central to our mission of offering a safe and secure marketplace for both buyers and sellers. If we make a mistake and incorrectly verify an item, we’re committed to making it right for our customers.’
Nike Go Loco Over Lululemon
Nike took Lululemon to the New York District Court in February, seeking an undisclosed sum of damages in a permanent injunction to avoid future infringement over their patented technology.
It’s becoming an annual battle between the duo, as Nike sued Lululemon in January last year over the latter’s Studio Mirror fitness device.
For this latest suit, according to Nike, Lululemon’s Chargefeel Mid, Chargefeel Low, Blissfeel, and Strongfeel silhouettes infringe on their tech, focusing on how the uppers have been constructed. A Lululemon spokesperson has stated that ‘Nike’s claims are unjustified, and we look forward to proving our case in court’. The infringing product from the activewear brand arrived last year to critical acclaim. Since its inception, Lululemon have radically expanded their footwear team, even hiring ex-Nike staff in the process.
adidas Cannibalism
The fallout between and has been in the headlines since adidas ended their partnership with Ye and the line in October 2022. Now according to , adidas shareholders filed a class-action lawsuit against the Three Stripes, alleging that the higher-ups at adidas ignored Ye’s antisemitism and ‘routinely ignored’ his behaviour which affected stock prices.
Filed on April 28 2023, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, the lawsuit accuses adidas senior executives, including adidas CFO Harm Ohlmeyer and former CEO Kasper Rørsted, of enabling Ye’s behaviour and they ‘failed to take meaningful precautionary measures to limit negative financial exposure’ if the collaborative partnership ended. The lawsuit includes anyone who’s bought shares of adidas from May 3 2018, when Ye stated that slavery was a ‘choice’, to 2023.
In a statement to CNN, adidas stated they ‘outright reject these unfounded claims and will take all necessary measures to vigorously defend ourselves against them’.
Thom Browne
womens white leather sneakers nike took NY label Thom Browne to court over the latter’s use of stripe branding, something the former has been associated with for decades. They were seeking nearly $8 million in licensing fees and claimed profits.
As reported by , nike reax sneakers squeaking on bike back pain against Thom Browne back in June 2021, with proceedings ongoing. The former alleges that the latter is benefiting from ‘selling athletic-style apparel and footwear featuring two, three or four parallel stripes in a manner that is confusingly similar to adidas’ three-stripe mark’.
Various Thom Browne Black have featured four parallel horizontal stripes since 2008, having previously used three. The label’s then-CEO made the change after being approached by adidas. Lawyers for the brand argue that it operates in a different market to adidas.
Despite this, adidas are seeking $867,225 in licensing fees and $7 million in claimed profits that Thom Browne have generated from continued usage of their four-stripe branding.
‘Three stripes are not the same as four horizontal bars,’ said Thom Browne lawyer Robert Maldonado. ‘[adidas] fell asleep at the wheel and woke up too late.’
In January, the court case concluded, with the jury ruling that Thom Browne’s usage of the stripes did not infringe on adidas trademarks. The NY label is, therefore, not liable for the nearly $8 million adidas were seeking.
‘We are pleased that the jury found that at no time did Thom Browne Inc. infringe on any of adidas’ trademarks. For over 20 years now, Thom Browne has been a pioneering force in luxury fashion, bringing a wholly unique and distinctive design aesthetic that combines classic tailoring with American sportswear sensibilities. We look forward to continuing to design and provide the creative products that have become the hallmark of the Thom Browne label,’ said a spokesperson in a statement supplied to .