Tyler Walker, Contributing Member 2023-2024
Business Director 2024-2025
Intellectual Property and Computer Law Journal
I. Introduction
In the realm of intellectual property, very few logos are more widely recognized than the ones belonging to Nike and Adidas. If you walk into any department store, basketball court, or fitness center, you are bound to see an array of apparel donning either a Nike swoosh or Adidas’ three stripes. Both of these iconic trademarks are commemorated in artwork, pop culture, and music, such as in Travis Scott’s “SICKO MODE” or Frank Ocean’s “Nikes.”[1] These two companies have been locked in a clash for brand supremacy for nearly sixty years, always attempting to one-up each other.[2] But the competitiveness between the two sportswear giants is not confined only to the court or field, but also has found its way into the courtroom. Nike and Adidas have been locked in a head-to-head battle over intellectual property rights for nearly two decades.[3] This article provides an overview of the history of each company’s famous trademarks and patents, the legal proceedings between Nike and Adidas over the last twenty years, and the outcomes of each case.
II. Brand history
Nike
The global sportswear giant Nike got its start in 1964, when former University of Oregon track and field standout, Phil Knight, teamed up with his collegiate coach to start their own shoe company known as Blue Ribbon Sports.[4] The partnership found a great deal of success in selling the iconic Tiger Cortez shoes, a reliable and affordable alternative to the Adidas and Puma shoes that dominated the market.[5] After breaking off its partnership with Japanese manufacturer Onitsuko (now known as Asics) in 1971, Blue Ribbon rebranded as “Nike,” named after the Greek winged-goddess of victory.[6]
That same year, Knight sought the creation of a logo for their new company.[7] Working as a professor at Portland State University, Knight hired graphic design student Carolyn Davidson to design a logo for the company.[8] Agreeing to only $2 per hour for her work, Davidson received a total of $35 for her design of the iconic Nike Swoosh.[9] Years later, Knight held a party for Davidson and awarded her 500 shares of stock, speculated to be worth roughly $1 million today.[10] Ironically, Knight unenthusiastically disapproved of the swoosh, telling Davidson that he would settle on it, hoping that it would “grow on [him].”[11] The iconic logo was federally registered as a trademark in 1974 and remains as one of the most recognizable brand logos of all time.[12]
Since then, Nike has trademarked countless variations of the swoosh, along with other famous slogans like “JUST DO IT” and “AIR JORDAN.”[13] With promotion by famous athletes like Michael Jordan, LeBron James, and Serena Williams, Nike’s array of trademarks have been household insignias for nearly half of a century.[14] In addition to registering trademarks for logos, names, and phrases, Nike has nearly 29,000 active registered patents.[15] The majority of these active patents relate to different styles and materials of apparel and footwear, but several of them involve technological innovations in tracking an athlete’s motion as they compete.[16] With this extensive portfolio of intellectual property, Nike boasts the most trademarks and patents of any sports apparel company in the world.[17]
Adidas
Adidas was started in 1949 by a German cobbler named Adi Dassler and his brother in a small town in Germany known as Herzogenaurach.[18] Beginning his work as a shoe repairmen with a passion for sports, Dassler worked out of an old laundry shed in the back on his family home.[19] After a heated dispute over business matters, Dassler’s brother eventually broke off in 1948 to operate his own competitive sportswear company known as Puma.[20] Dassler’s company, later registered as “Adi Dassler adidas Sportschuhfabrik,” became a national sensation in Germany after the national football team beat the unstoppable Hungarian squad in the 1954 World Cup final while wearing special screw-in cleats made by Dassler.[21]
While the famous three stripes were featured on all shoes that Adidas sold, a logo donning the three parallel stripes was not trademarked until 1972 with the introduction of the alternate black trefoil “triple leaf” with white stripes.[22] The trefoil, unveiled at the 1972 Olympics held in Munich, Germany, was an instant international hit.[23] Since then, Adidas has trademarked over two hundred and twenty different logos, designs, and fonts for the company.[24] These include marks like “Three Stripe Life,” “The Brand with the 3 Stripes,” and even the name “Adi Dassler.”[25] Yet the quintessential classic three stripes mark has grown as a cultural icon and is widely recognized as the Adidas symbol in the worlds of soccer, basketball, fashion, and more. Famous celebrities like Steph Curry, Run-D.M.C., and Lionel Messi have continued to promote the sporting line and its logos into the current century.[26]
III. Litigation History
Neither Nike nor Adidas have ever shied away from initiating a lawsuit to aggressively protect their respective intellectual property.[27] In fact, Adidas, alone, has filed over forty five lawsuits alleging intellectual property infringement over the last thirty years.[28] Nike is just as, if not more, litigious as Adidas, suing over a dozen entities over the past four years for allegedly using their patents and trademarks.[29] As these competing multi-billion dollar companies possess such vast portfolios of intellectual property, it should come as no surprise that Nike and Adidas have found themselves toe-to-toe in the court room.
Early Litigation
The initial legal bout between Nike and Adidas took place in July 2006 when Nike filed suit in federal court alleging that Adidas was infringing on two of their respective patents, demanding damages for Adidas’ unlawful profiting off its technology.[30] The disputed patents were for footwear with a lateral stabilizing sole, as well as various methods of monitoring a person’s movements using a mounted sensor.[31] Prior to the lawsuit’s initiation, Nike had begun adding sensors to its athletic gear as a way to track athletes’ movements and training activities, as well as implementing the patented cushioning technology in a number of the company’s sneakers.[32] However, in June 2005, Adidas launched the “adidas_1,” which it patented as the world’s first intelligent shoe.[33] The shoe was designed to incorporate “intelligent cushioning” by automatically and continuously adjusting itself by sensing the cushioning level, using sensors and microprocessors.[34] After months of litigation, the court granted Adidas’ motion to strike a majority of Nike’s infringement claims.[35] Soon after, Nike chose to drop the lawsuit, but this was only the beginning in a long chain of litigation.[36]
In December of 2006, Nike filed in an Oregon District Court, seeking declaratory judgement that its use of clothing designs featuring two stripes did not infringe of Adidas’ trademarked “Three-Stripe Mark.”[37] Nike had been selling articles of clothing that featured two parallel line, which loosely resembled a similar design that Adidas made famous. Yet, Adidas never brought a trademark-infringement action against Nike and denied having any apprehension to do so.[38] Adidas stipulated that it would not sue Nike for the sale of two-stripe products, releasing Nike from liability for that particular product.[39] The Court ultimately decided to dismiss the case on the grounds that Nike’s claims were moot and lacked controversy.[40] While a clash was immediately avoided, the break in litigation between the two companies would be short-lived.
Flyknit Lawsuits
In February 2012, Nike unveiled their new “Flyknit” shoes, which utilized their new patented support technology that was designed to offer a stronger support with fewer material.[41] Adidas followed with their own similar “Primeknit” shoes in July of the same year, showing them off at the London Olympic games.[42] Nike sued for patent infringement before the Nuremberg court—because Adidas was only selling their shoes in Germany at the time—but its claim was ultimately denied.[43] In response, Adidas filed an application in the U.S. to challenge the validity of the Nike patent, arguing that the design was overly obvious and was unpatentable.[44] Initially granted by the court on account of Nike’s failure to prove patentability, Nike appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.[45] The litigation then entered into an extensive game of back-and-forth between the Federal Circuit and the Patent Appeals Board, involving three remands and subsequent appeals.[46] Finally, in 2020, the Federal Circuit ruled in favor of Nike, finding that all but part of Nike’s Flyknit design was patentable.[47] Nike would later appeal to the Supreme Court to overturn the Patent Office’s decision to cancel part of the patent, but certiorari was denied.[48]
As one would expect, Nike filed several patent infringement suits against Adidas soon after it received a favorable ruling regarding its Flyknit patent. In December 2021, Nike initiated a suit in the District Court District of Oregon claiming that Adidas was infringing on several of its footwear patents, namely its Flyknit knitted shoe upper technology.[49] The suit specifically cited Adidas’s Primeknit shoes as an example of a product that allegedly infringed on Nike’s patents.[50] However, Adidas took to the offensive for the first time and filed their own countersuits. Adidas sued Nike in June of 2022, alleging that Nike infringing nine of its patents with its mobile applications and shoe-fitting technology.[51] Adidas cited its history of mobile-fitness technology, including the adidas_1 in 2004, the “first fully integrated training system combining sensors in shoes and wearable devices” in 2005, and personal training apps starting in 2008.[52] Not two months later, Adidas and Nike reached an agreement to settle all on-going patent disputes and dismiss all claims.[53]
IV. Conclusion
The deep history between these two sportswear companies is rich with high performance, technological innovation, and fierce competition, both in athletics and the courtroom. After nearly two decades of litigation, the legal battle between Nike and Adidas seems to have finally slowed after a series of settlements and the Supreme Court’s decision to deny certiorari. But with continued growth in sports and fashion, it is only a matter of time till these two juggernauts find themselves face-to-face once again. Ultimately, as companies continue to push the boundaries of innovation and design, the showdown between Nike and Adidas illustrates the fine line between inspiration and infringement in the world of trademarks.[54]
[1] Travis Scott, SICKO MODE (Cactus Jack Records 2018); Frank Ocean, Nikes (Boys Don’t Cry 2016).
[2] Natalie Kolton, Sneaker Supremacy: Nike and Adidas battle for brand love (May 10, 2022) https://www.marketingdive.com/news/sneaker-supremacy-nike-adidas-brand-rivalry/621712/
[3] Marius Meland, Adidas Wins Trademark Suit Vs. Nike Over Three-Stripes Logo, Law 360 (Jan. 25, 2005, 12:00 AM) https://www.law360.com/articles/2907/adidas-wins-trademark-suit-vs-nike-over-three-stripes-logo.
[4] Debbie Carlson, Nike, Inc., Brittanica, (Mar. 14, 2024) https://www.britannica.com/topic/Nike-Inc.
[5] Id.
[6] Id.
[7] Oliver, The Nike Logo: A $35 Logo that Became a Global Icon, Looka, (Apr. 24, 2023), https://looka.com/blog/nike-logo/.
[8] Id.
[9] Jack Meyer, History of Nike: Timeline and Facts, The Street, (Aug. 14, 2019), https://www.thestreet.com/lifestyle/history-of-nike-15057083
[10] Id.
[11] Never Done Leaving a Mark, Nike, (May 16, 2022), https://www.nike.com/a/never-done-leaving-a-mark-swoosh.
[12] Nike Trademarks, Gerben Law, https://www.gerbenlaw.com/trademarks/footwear/nike/#:~:text=The%20infamous%20logo%20became%20a,market%20in%20the%20United%20States (last visited Mar. 20, 2024).
[13] Id.
[14] Id.
[15] How many Nike Patents are alive/dead?, Statista, https://www.statista.com/statistics/1315541/nike-patent-status-worldwide/ (last visited Mar. 20, 2024).
[16] Nike Patents- Insights & Stats, GreyB, (Mar. 4, 2024), https://insights.greyb.com/nike-patents/.
[17] Id.: See Nike Trademarks, supra note 12.
[18] History, Adidas, https://www.adidas-group.com/en/about/history (last visited Mar. 20, 2024).
[19] https://www.gameplan-a.com/2020/11/adolf-dassler-the-creative-and-innovative-leader-behind-adidas/
[20] Id.
[21] Id.
[22]Adidas Logos: History and Meaning, Adidas, https://www.adidas.com/us/blog/932571-adidas-logos-history-and-meaning (last visited Mar. 20, 2024).
[23] Id.
[24] Adidas Trademarks, Gerben Law, https://www.gerbenlaw.com/trademarks/footwear/adidas/#86106708 (last visited Mar. 20, 2024).
[25] Id.
[26] Ryan Lau, The Adidas Logo & Brand: A Story of Heritage and Rivalry, Logo (Jan. 30, 2023) https://logo.com/blog/adidas-logo
[27] Matthew Kish, Nike is doubling down on litigation in a fierce battle to protect its patents and trademarks. Here’s every brand it has sued in recent years, Business Insider, (Mar. 1, 2023, 5:00 AM),, https://www.businessinsider.com/brands-nike-has-sued-litigation-protect-trademarks-patents-2023-3 ; Sangeeta Singh-Kurtz, Adidas has sued pretty much everyone who has used stripes, Quartz, (June 21, 2019), https://qz.com/quartzy/1647995/adidas-has-sued-pretty-much-everyone-who-has-used-stripes
[28] Id.
[29] Id.
[30] Nike, Inc. v. Adidas Am., Inc. 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91011 (E.D. Tex. 2006).
[31] Id. at *2, *7, *30-31.
[32] Parker’s Nike Files Lawsuit Against Adidas, Forbes, (Feb. 17, 2006, 9:21 AM), https://www.forbes.com/2006/02/17/nike-adidas-legal-cx_cn_0217autofacescan01.html?sh=73190a895c8c
[33] Mike Hanlon, adidas launches adidas_1, the World’s First Intelligent Shoe, New Atlas, (Mar. 7, 2005), https://newatlas.com/adidas-launches-adidas_1-the-worlds-first-intelligent-shoe/3810/.
[34] Id.
[35] Nike, Inc. v. Adidas Am., Inc., 479 F.Supp. 2d 664, 670 (E.D. Tex. 2007).
[36] Blake Brittain, Nike, Adidas settle patent fights over shoe technology, Reuters, (Aug. 19, 2022, 12:31 PM), https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/nike-adidas-settle-patent-fights-over-shoe-technology-2022-08-19/.
[37]Nike, Inc. v. Adidas Am., Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90483, *2 (D. Or. 2006)
[38] Id., at *3.
[39] Id. at *16.
[40] Id. at *17.
[41] Final round in Flyknit patent: Adidas challenged NIKE again, Patentanwaltskanzlei, (Dec. 5, 2017), https://legal-patent.com/patent-law/final-round-flyknit-patent-adidas-challenged-nike/.
[42] Id.
[43] Id.
[44] 2014 Pat. App. 2644, 2014 Pat. App. LEXIS 2644 (P.T.A.B. 2014).
[45] Id. at *55.
[46] Adidas AG v. Nike, Inc., 963 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2020), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 1376 (2021).
[47] Id. at 1360.
[48] Blake Brittain, US Supreme Court turns down Nike, Adidas patent dispute, REUTERS (June 26, 2023, 10:08 AM), https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-turns-down-nike-adidas-patent-dispute-2023-06-26/.
[49] Stephen Garner, Nike and Adidas Settle Two Separate Patent Lawsuits Over Sneaker Technology, Footwear News, (Aug. 22, 2022), https://footwearnews.com/business/legal-news/nike-adidas-lawsuit-settled-sneaker-technology-1203327210/.
[50] Id.
[51] Blake Brittain, Adidas sues Nike over run-tracking, shoe-adjusting technologies, REUTERS (June 10, 2022, 3:29 PM), https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/adidas-sues-nike-over-run-tracking-shoe-adjusting-technologies-2022-06-10/.
[52] Id.
[53] Brittain, supra note 36.
[54] Ricardo Zuniga, Swoosh vs. Stripe: The Nike vs. Adidas Trademark Showdown, https://www.ricardozunigaviteri.com/post/swoosh-vs-stripes-the-nike-vs-adidas-trademark-showdown (last visited Mar. 21, 2024).
The University of Cincinnati Intellectual Property and Computer Law Journal 
Leave a comment