US Supreme Court backs Nike in Air Force 1 trade mark case

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

US Supreme Court backs Nike in Air Force 1 trade mark case

The US Supreme Court has unanimously upheld a trade mark owner’s right to have counterclaims for trade mark cancellation dismissed if it has withdrawn infringement claims

The dispute arose after Nike sued rival Already (also known as Yums) in New York for infringement of its US trade mark 3,451,905, which covers the shape of its Air Force 1 shoe. Already counter-sued, seeking cancellation of the mark on the grounds that it was invalid, as well as a declaration that its own shoes did not infringe.

Soon after Nike withdrew the suit, and gave a broad covenant not to sue covering Already’s existing footwear product designs “and any colorable imitations thereof”.

But Already persisted with its counterclaims. Nike therefore asked the court to dismiss them.

The district court agreed with Nike, saying there was no longer any “case or controversy” between the parties. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit agreed.

Ruling on January 9, the Supreme Court also agreed, saying that the broad covenant not to sue made it absolutely clear the case is moot and that Nike had met the stringent requirements of the voluntary cessation doctrine.

But in a concurring opinion, four judges warned that covenants such as that given by Nike “ought not to be taken as an automatic means for the party who first charged a competitor with trademark infringement suddenly to abandon the suit without incurring the risk of an ensuing adverse adjudication”.

Already can still seek cancellation of the trade mark at the USPTO if it wishes.

INTA submitted an amicus brief in the case and reported on the decision.

More coverage of the case is available on the SCOTUS blog and the TTAB blog among other sources.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

The UK-India trade deal doesn’t mention legal services, showing India has again failed to agree on a move that could help foreign firms and local practitioners
Eva-Maria Strobel reveals some of the firm’s IP achievements and its approach to client relationships
Lateral hires at Thompson Hine and Pierson Ferdinand said they were inspired by fresh business opportunities and innovative strategies at their new firms
The launch of a new IP insurance product and INTA hiring a former USPTO commissioner were also among the top talking points this week
The firm explains how it secured a $170.6 million verdict against the government in a patent dispute surrounding airport technology, and why the case led to interest from other inventors
Developments of note included the court partially allowing a claim concerning confidentiality clubs and a decision involving technology used in football matches
The firm said adding capability in the French capital completes its coverage of all major patent litigation jurisdictions as it strives for UPC excellence
Marc Fenster explains how keeping the jury focused on the most relevant facts helped secure a $279m win for his client against Samsung
Clients are divided on what externally funded IP firms bring to the table, so those firms must prove why the benefits outweigh the downsides
Rahul Bhartiya, AI coordinator at the EUIPO, discusses the office’s strategy, collaboration with other IP offices, and getting rid of routine tasks
Gift this article