Introduction
"On your marks—get set—innovate!" April 26, 2026 marks the 26th World Intellectual Property Day. As WIPO shines a spotlight on IP protection in the sports industry, the global journey of one sportswear brand stands as a textbook example of intellectual property offense and defense—covering patents and trademarks.
Nike, a footwear brand born on the track of the University of Oregon, has grown into a major IP holder in the global sports industry. It owns thousands of patents, while its trademarks such as "JUST DO IT" and the Swoosh are household names. Yet successful brands often become targets of imitation, with infringers, counterfeiters and copycats emerging constantly. Nike’s choice: to wage war against all infringement using intellectual property as its weapon.
Round 1: Technological Innovation – Patents as Competitive Barriers
Progress in sports relies not only on athletes’ physical breakthroughs but also on the iteration of equipment technology. Nike’s investment in technical patents and enforcement of rights sets an industry benchmark.
In April 2026, Nike sued New Balance and Skechers, alleging that their footwear products infringed patents related to Nike’s Flyknit weaving technology. Nike claimed that multiple New Balance models (including Fresh Foam X 1080 v12 and FuelCell Rebel v3) and Skechers’ Arch Fit series used Flyknit technology without authorization. Flyknit uses high-strength fibers to create lightweight uppers with targeted support, stretch and breathability, making it one of Nike’s flagship core technologies. After repeated unsuccessful communications with New Balance, Nike stated that the defendant had "expanded the scope of infringing activities", and thus asked the court to order the two companies to cease infringement and pay damages.
Previously, Nike also sued Japanese fashion brand BAPE for trademark infringement, accusing it of "building its business around copying Nike’s iconic designs". Nike spares no effort to protect its design patents and trade dress. The World Intellectual Property Organization noted in its interpretation of this year’s theme that the patent system builds a solid barrier to innovation for R&D teams, encouraging enterprises to upgrade product quality and drive the sports equipment industry toward high-end and intelligent development.
Round 2: Brand Enforcement – Legal Defense for the Swoosh
If patents are Nike’s arsenal, trademarks are its identity. Nike understands well that once a brand logo loses legal protection, it risks becoming a public resource for unrestricted use.
In March 2026, a jury at the United States District Court for the Central District of California ruled that social media influencer Nicholas Tuinenburg and his brand Divide The Youth had committed counterfeiting, trademark infringement and infringement of Nike Dunk’s trade dress, ordering total compensation of $11 million. Nike accused the influencer of building and operating a multi-platform counterfeit ecosystem to promote and facilitate sales of fake Nike products. Even though the infringer deliberately avoided using word marks and logos to reduce infringement risks, Nike still won the case with the powerful tool of trade dress. This case proves that the law can effectively protect original designs even when counterfeits intentionally steer clear of typical brand elements.
Nike has also achieved remarkable results in trademark enforcement in the Chinese market. In recent years, multiple customs authorities have seized footwear, apparel and other goods infringing the Nike Swoosh trademark during export inspections and imposed administrative penalties on relevant enterprises.
Round 3: Proactive Layout and Defense – Market Game of Trademark Portfolio
Nike’s intellectual property strategy focuses not only on ex-post enforcement but also on ex-ante layout. Yet even a giant with a massive legal team can stumble.
In April 2026, the United States Patent and Trademark Office formally rejected Nike’s trademark application for the "B9" signature logo of Los Angeles Lakers guard Bronny James. Examiners found that the logo was highly similar in "appearance, pronunciation and commercial impression" to a mark registered in 2022 by Texas golf apparel brand Back9 Golf Apparel, creating a likelihood of confusion. Nike now has three months to file an appeal, revise the design or negotiate a consent agreement with the rights holder. This case reveals an often-overlooked truth: even industry giants like Nike cannot take ownership of any market symbol for granted—all brands are equal under trademark law.
Nike has faced setbacks in trademark applications before. Its "Total 90" mark was revoked in 2019, and disputes over the sign with third parties continue. These cases remind all brands: trademark layout is about defense as much as offense; registration is only the first step, and every legal hurdle after registration must be defended.
Finish Line: Intellectual Property as a Brand’s Lifeline
From Flyknit patent lawsuits and multi-million-dollar counterfeit damages to the blocked "B9" trademark application, Nike’s IP story features both offense and defense, victories and setbacks.
As WIPO called for on World Intellectual Property Day 2026: "Let us celebrate the creators, inventors and entrepreneurs whose passion and creativity drive the future of sports, keeping the sporting world vibrant, dynamic and accessible to everyone everywhere."
For Nike, intellectual property is more than a tool for commercial competition—it is the core of its brand value. From the technical patent of a running shoe, to the Swoosh on the side, to the registration of star signature logos, every IP right extends the brand’s lifeline.
The starting gun has fired. On the track where sports and intellectual property intersect, success depends not only on product speed but also on the strength of legal protection.
