Nike made headlines in February 2022 when it filed a headline-making lawsuit against StockX, alleging that the sneaker and streetwear marketplace was on the hook for trademark infringement, dilution, and unfair competition. (Nike has since added counterfeiting and false advertising claims to the mix.) According to Nike, StockX was offering up non-fungible tokens (“NFTs”) that made “prominent use [of] Nike’s trademarks, marketing those NFTs using Nike’s goodwill, and selling those NFTs at heavily inflated prices to unsuspecting consumers who believe[d] or [were] likely to believe that [the NFTs were] in fact, authorized by Nike” when Nike did not authorize and was not involved in the creation or sale of such NFTs.
In response to Nike’s suit, Detroit-headquartered StockX has argued that it is not running afoul of the Swoosh’s trademark rights by offering up NFTs “to track ownership of frequently traded physical goods.” In its March 2023 answer, StockX asserted that the claims made by Nike “lack merit, disregard settled doctrines of trademark law, including the doctrines of first sale and nominative fair use, and show a fundamental misunderstanding of the various functions NFTs can serve.” At the same time, StockX claimed that the likelihood of consumer confusion at play is low since “at every point in the process, consumers are made aware they are purchasing physical goods that StockX has authenticated.”
But also, StockX has maintained that its sale of the NFTs “is no different than major e-commerce retailers and marketplaces who use images and descriptions of products to sell physical sneakers and other goods,” which “consumers see (and are not confused by) every single day.”
Following a period of relative inactivity on the docket for this case, the parties are preparing for trial. With that in mind (and in light of the importance of the case as one of the few major fashion/sportswear cases to center on the intersection of trademarks and NFTs), we have put together a brief running timeline of notable filings (complete with links to any corresponding articles) in order to help you to stay abreast of developments …
Mar. 4, 2025: StockX must face Nike’s claims trademark infringement and false advertising claims, Judge Valerie Caproni found, stating that the issues are to be decided by a jury. In a win for Nike, the court granted summary judgment on its counterfeiting claim, holding that StockX is liable for selling 37 pairs of counterfeit sneakers – four pairs to investigators employed by Nike and the rest to StockX customer, Roy Kim.
Nov. 12, 2024: In a pair of newly unsealed filings, Nike urges the court to hand it an early victory on the willful counterfeiting and false advertising claims it has waged against StockX. According to its motion for partial summary judgment and corresponding memos in support, which were originally filed in August, Nike alleges that these causes of action are “ripe for summary adjudication because StockX admits the predicate facts establishing these claims.”
In particular, Nike argues that StockX has “admi[ted] that it received, examined, advertised as ‘100% Authentic,’ and distributed counterfeit ‘Nike’ footwear.” And StockX “admits that it knew that its authenticity claims were false,” per Nike, and yet, “continued to promote them.”
Nov. 5, 2024: StockX is looking to escape some of the claims lodged against it by Nike. In a motion for partial summary judgment that was originally filed in August and unsealed in November, the online resale platform is looking to escape the false advertising claims waged against it by Nike. Among other things, StockX arguesthat Nike has failed to put forth any evidence showing that its authentication and advertising practices mislead consumers or harm Nike.
Jun. 6, 2022: In an answer to Nike’s amended complaint, StockX denies the bulk of the claims that Nike has lodged against it, asserting that the amended complaint is “nothing more than a failed attempt to bolster its still meritless claims.” In addition to arguing that it is “lawfully us[ing] NFTs to allow users to more efficiently transact in authentic goods,” StockX maintains that Nike’s suit is little more than an “anticompetitive” attempt by the sportswear titan to “stifle the secondary market, hurt consumers,” and “an affront to the entire resale market.”
May 25, 2022: Nike lodged an amended complaint. By way to the new complaint, the Swoosh doubles-down on its existing causes of action against StockX and adding counterfeiting and false advertising to the mix. Additionally, Nike requests that the court “swiftly and permanently stop StockX from continuing to sell Vault NFTs bearing Nike’s famous marks, selling counterfeit Nike goods, and making false and/or misleading claims regarding the purported authenticity of those goods.”
Mar. 31, 2022: StockX filed an answer, in which it argues that it is not running afoul of Nike’s trademark rights by offering up NFTs “to track ownership of frequently traded physical goods.” Pushing back against Nike’s trademark claims, StockX argues that “consumers are made aware they are purchasing physical goods that StockX has authenticated, that StockX is storing such physical products in its vault, that such physical goods may be traded via blockchain and tracked using a StockX-branded Vault NFT, and that the Vault NFT may be redeemed for the physical goods themselves.” As such, “No one has been – or could be – confused as to the source.”
Beyond that, StockX takes issue with Nike’s position that “resellers of products are legally prohibited from accurately describing the physical products they seek to trade in the digital world,” which it argues is “contrary to trademark law.”
Feb. 3, 2022: Nike filed a trademark infringement and dilution, and unfair competition complaint against StockX in a New York federal court, arguing that the marketplace site was “minting” NFTs that make “prominent use [of] Nike’s trademarks, marketing those NFTs using Nike’s goodwill, and selling those NFTs at heavily inflated prices to unsuspecting consumers who believe or are likely to believe that those ‘investible digital assets’ (as StockX calls them) are, in fact, authorized by Nike.”
The case is Nike, Inc. v. StockX LLC, 1:22-cv-00983 (SDNY).
Share
