Nike and BAPE Settle Sneaker Lawsuit Over Air Force 1 Lookalikes After Court Battle

Nike and BAPE’s sneaker lawsuit ends in a settlement, raising key questions about design rights and trade dress protection.

Nike’s high-profile legal battle with Japanese streetwear brand A Bathing Ape (BAPE) over alleged “copycat” sneakers has taken several dramatic turns, culminating in a closely watched settlement that could shape the future of sneaker design and intellectual property protection.

Nike claimed that BAPE's footwear business revolves around copying Nike's iconic designs, and that some of its shoes are 'near verbatim' copies of Nike's Air Force 1, Air Jordan 1, and Dunk sneakers.

The Background: Trade Dress and Trademark Claims

At the heart of Nike’s lawsuit filed in January 2023 are claims that BAPE’s STA series—including the STA Mid, SK8 STA, COURT STA High, and COURT STA are “near verbatim copies” of Nike’s most recognizable sneakers. Nike argued that its Air Force 1, Air Jordan 1, and Dunk lines have achieved trade dress protection through “extensive use and consumer recognition,” making their designs legally distinctive and non-functional.

According to USPTO, Trade dress refers to the non-verbal aspects of a product’s presentation, including its design, packaging, and color scheme. It essentially protects the overall image that consumers associate with a particular brand.

BAPE countered by seeking to dismiss the case, arguing that Nike’s trade dress claims lacked sufficient legal basis and that the shoe designs were too simple to warrant protection. Furthermore, BAPE insisted that consumers could easily distinguish between the two brands

The Court’s Ruling: Case Moves Forward

In March 2024, U.S. District Judge Paul Gardephe rejected BAPE’s motion to dismiss. The court found that Nike had “adequately articulated the scope of Nike’s asserted trade dress,” noting that the complaint included “detailed written descriptions, as well as diagrams that specifically denote which parts of the trade dress are being claimed as distinctive.” Judge Gardephe stated, “I am not prepared to rule that Nike’s written descriptions and trade dress diagrams are insufficient articulations of ‘the specific elements of the trade dress that should be protected."

This decision allowed the lawsuit to proceed, setting the stage for a full trial on whether BAPE’s designs infringed Nike’s protected trade dress and whether Nike’s trade dress rights were still valid given past settlements with third parties.

BAPE’s Counterclaims and Legal Strategy

After its motion to dismiss was denied, BAPE launched a counterclaim, seeking to cancel several of Nike’s trade dress registrations. BAPE argued that Nike had abandoned its rights by granting “naked licenses”, allowing third parties to use its designs without maintaining quality control. BAPE cited Nike’s previous settlement with Already LLC as an example, contending that such covenants not to sue undermined the distinctiveness and enforceability of Nike’s trade dress.

BAPE asserted, “Nike has permitted widespread third-party use of its purported Air Force 1, Air Jordan 1, and Dunk trade dress, beyond the use of the Air Force 1 trade dress by Already,” and therefore, those registrations should be invalidated.

The Settlement: A Pivotal Resolution

Before the court could rule on these complex issues, Nike and BAPE settled in late April 2024. According to court filings and Nike’s statement, “BAPE agreed to discontinue its sale of some of the allegedly infringing sneakers and to redesign others.”

The settlement brought an end to the litigation, with both parties agreeing to dismiss all claims and pay their own legal fees. Representatives for BAPE did not immediately respond to requests for comment, but the outcome signals a significant shift in how major brands may approach enforcement and licensing of their iconic designs in the future.

What’s Next for Sneaker IP?

While the case has been settled, it leaves open important questions about the limits of trade dress protection, the impact of past licensing decisions, and how courts will handle similar disputes going forward. As one legal observer noted, “companies should consider the impact that their current enforcement and settlement strategies may have on their ability to successfully pursue future infringements down the road.”

Nike’s case against BAPE underscores the growing importance and complexity of intellectual property rights in the global sneaker industry. As imitation products proliferate, the line between inspiration and infringement will remain a hotly contested issue, demanding scrutiny from courts, brands, and consumers alike.