Nike’s revival of its iconic “Total 90” soccer cleat line has sparked a legal turf war – but the world’s largest sportswear company has dodged an early legal setback, with a Louisiana federal court denying a temporary restraining order sought by a smaller apparel firm that claims ownership of the mark. In a newly-issued order, the court found that the plaintiff, Total90, LLC, failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits or a substantial threat of irreparable harm – both prerequisites for emergency injunctive relief.
The Background in Brief: Total90, LLC asserts that Nike is infringing its federally registered TOTAL90 trademark by using the same mark on footwear and apparel sold through overlapping retail channels. While Nike originally launched the “Total 90” line in 2000 and held a corresponding registration, it allowed that registration to lapse in 2019. In the wake of what it describes as Nike’s abandonment, Total90 says it began using the mark on digital soccer platforms and later expanded into apparel, obtaining two federal registrations by 2022.
In the lawsuit that it filed in November, Louisiana-based Total90 alleges that Nike’s March 2025 relaunch of “Total 90” cleats has eclipsed its brand presence, leading to consumer confusion and damage to its business. The company asserts federal and state trademark infringement and unfair competition claims, and is seeking a permanent injunction, cancellation of any Nike applications for the mark, and monetary damages.
No TRO for Total90
In an order issued on November 26, Judge Wendy Vitter of the Eastern District of Louisiana rejected Total90’s request for a TRO, concluding that the company had not met the legal threshold for preliminary relief.
> In its bid for a TRO, Total90 argued that Nike had abandoned the “Total 90” mark after letting its registration lapse in 2019, and that Nike’s market-saturating relaunch had caused reverse confusion, leading consumers to mistakenly associate Total90’s products with Nike.
> Nike argued in response that it is the senior user of the mark, having continuously used “Total 90” in commerce since 2000, and while its registration may have lapsed, it never stopped using the mark or maintaining its brand equity.
Siding with Nike, Judge Vitter emphasized that “ownership of trademarks is established by use, not by registration,” and found that Total90 had not shown Nike ceased use or intended to abandon the mark.
The court also found Total90’s reverse confusion argument lacking, noting the absence of concrete evidence that consumers were actually confused, a factor the court called “the best evidence” in such cases. Although Total90 highlighted the phonetic and visual similarity of the marks and their shared association with soccer products, it failed to demonstrate overlap in sales channels, advertising strategies, or any intent by Nike to mislead consumers. “Presentation in advertisements” matters, the court noted, and Total90 offered no evidence that Nike’s marketing implied any connection between the two brands.
A further strike against Total90’s TRO request was its delay. The company first contacted Nike about the mark in December 2024 but waited nearly 11 months – during ongoing negotiations – before filing suit. Courts often view such delays as undermining claims of urgent, irreparable harm. As Judge Vitter wrote, a party truly facing imminent harm “would and should seek injunctive relief rather than, or in addition to, engaging in negotiations.” The court held that this delay rebutted any presumption of irreparable harm under the Trademark Modernization Act.
THE BOTTOM LINE: While the denial of the TRO is not a final ruling on the merits, it indicates that Total90 faces an uphill battle in trying to enforce its registration against Nike’s legacy use. For Nike, the ruling clears the way – at least for now – for its continued use of the “Total 90” name in its soccer product portfolio.
The case is Total90 LLC v. Nike, Inc., 2:25-cv-02325 (E.D. La.).
Share
