Loading
Apparel
8 min read
Areas of Expertise :
Marketing, Consumer Survey, Trademarks, Intellectual Property
Published Date:
Last Modified Date:
Jurisdiction:
Federal. Southern District of New York
Court:
In Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85 (2013), the U.S. Supreme Court considered whether Nike’s unconditional covenant not to sue ended Already, LLC’s counterclaims challenging a registered trademark associated with the Air Force 1 shoe design. The dispute began after Nike alleged that two athletic shoe lines sold by Already infringed and diluted its registered design mark.
Already denied the allegations and sought cancellation of the trademark registration. Nike later issued a broad covenant not to sue and moved to dismiss its infringement and dilution claims with prejudice. The remaining dispute concerned Article III jurisdiction, mootness, standing, and the voluntary cessation doctrine.
Nike, Inc. filed suit against Already, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Nike alleged that Already’s “Sugars” and “Soulja Boys” shoes infringed and diluted Nike’s registered trademark covering the design of the Air Force 1 sneaker. The complaint focused on similarities between the accused footwear and the design features protected by Nike’s registration.
Already denied the infringement and dilution allegations and filed counterclaims seeking cancellation of Nike’s registration. The company alleged that the Air Force 1 design mark was invalid and should be removed from the federal trademark register. The counterclaims placed the validity of Nike’s registration before the district court while the infringement claims remained pending.
Nike delivered an unconditional and irrevocable covenant protecting Already and specified related parties from certain trademark claims. The covenant covered the “Sugars” and “Soulja Boys” shoes, other existing Already footwear, and future products that were colorable imitations of those designs. Nike then moved to dismiss its claims with prejudice and argued that Already’s cancellation counterclaims no longer presented a live controversy.
The district court concluded that Nike’s covenant removed any sufficiently immediate and concrete controversy concerning the covered footwear. Because Already no longer faced an actual or imminent risk of suit, the court determined that the cancellation counterclaims were moot under Article III. The court dismissed Nike’s claims with prejudice and dismissed Already’s remaining counterclaims without prejudice.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the dismissal. It found that the covenant was broad enough to protect Already’s existing commercial activities and closely related future products. The court also concluded that alleged investor hesitation, retailer concerns, reputational effects, and business uncertainty did not establish a concrete injury sufficient to preserve federal jurisdiction.
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review whether Nike’s covenant was sufficient to end the federal lawsuit. Already argued that Nike should not be permitted to prevent judicial review of the trademark registration by withdrawing its infringement claims after the cancellation counterclaims had been filed. The appeal required the Court to determine whether a live case or controversy remained after Nike abandoned enforcement against the covered products.
The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the dismissal in Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that Nike bore the burden of showing that its challenged enforcement conduct could not reasonably be expected to recur because Nike had voluntarily ended the infringement action.
The Court concluded that the covenant met that burden. Its terms protected Already, related business entities, distributors, employees of those entities, and customers. The protection extended beyond the two shoe lines identified in Nike’s complaint and included existing footwear designs and future products that were colorable imitations of those designs.
Already did not identify a specific shoe it planned to produce outside the covenant’s coverage. The Court also rejected claimed injuries involving investor reluctance, retailer concerns, fear of renewed litigation, and Nike’s continued ownership of the registration because those allegations were not connected to an actual or imminent threat of another trademark enforcement action.
Justice Anthony Kennedy filed a concurring opinion joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Sonia Sotomayor. The concurrence agreed that Nike’s covenant ended the controversy but cautioned that courts must evaluate each covenant according to its precise language and the parties’ commercial circumstances.
The concurring justices emphasized that a narrower promise may leave a trademark challenger exposed to future litigation. They also warned against assuming that every covenant will prevent a party from pursuing a challenge to a trademark registration.
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
Case Name:
Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc.
Trademark Infringement
Likelihood Of Confusion
Brand Dilution
Branding
Footwear
Advertising and Marketing
In Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85 (2013), the U.S. Supreme Court considered whether Nike’s unconditional covenant not to sue ended Already, LLC’s counterclaims challenging a registered trademark associated with the Air Force 1 shoe design. The dispute began after Nike alleged that two athletic shoe lines sold by Already infringed and diluted its registered design mark.
Already denied the allegations and sought cancellation of the trademark registration. Nike later issued a broad covenant not to sue and moved to dismiss its infringement and dilution claims with prejudice. The remaining dispute concerned Article III jurisdiction, mootness, standing, and the voluntary cessation doctrine.
Nike, Inc. filed suit against Already, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Nike alleged that Already’s “Sugars” and “Soulja Boys” shoes infringed and diluted Nike’s registered trademark covering the design of the Air Force 1 sneaker. The complaint focused on similarities between the accused footwear and the design features protected by Nike’s registration.
Already denied the infringement and dilution allegations and filed counterclaims seeking cancellation of Nike’s registration. The company alleged that the Air Force 1 design mark was invalid and should be removed from the federal trademark register. The counterclaims placed the validity of Nike’s registration before the district court while the infringement claims remained pending.
Nike delivered an unconditional and irrevocable covenant protecting Already and specified related parties from certain trademark claims. The covenant covered the “Sugars” and “Soulja Boys” shoes, other existing Already footwear, and future products that were colorable imitations of those designs. Nike then moved to dismiss its claims with prejudice and argued that Already’s cancellation counterclaims no longer presented a live controversy.
The district court concluded that Nike’s covenant removed any sufficiently immediate and concrete controversy concerning the covered footwear. Because Already no longer faced an actual or imminent risk of suit, the court determined that the cancellation counterclaims were moot under Article III. The court dismissed Nike’s claims with prejudice and dismissed Already’s remaining counterclaims without prejudice.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the dismissal. It found that the covenant was broad enough to protect Already’s existing commercial activities and closely related future products. The court also concluded that alleged investor hesitation, retailer concerns, reputational effects, and business uncertainty did not establish a concrete injury sufficient to preserve federal jurisdiction.
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review whether Nike’s covenant was sufficient to end the federal lawsuit. Already argued that Nike should not be permitted to prevent judicial review of the trademark registration by withdrawing its infringement claims after the cancellation counterclaims had been filed. The appeal required the Court to determine whether a live case or controversy remained after Nike abandoned enforcement against the covered products.
The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the dismissal in Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that Nike bore the burden of showing that its challenged enforcement conduct could not reasonably be expected to recur because Nike had voluntarily ended the infringement action.
The Court concluded that the covenant met that burden. Its terms protected Already, related business entities, distributors, employees of those entities, and customers. The protection extended beyond the two shoe lines identified in Nike’s complaint and included existing footwear designs and future products that were colorable imitations of those designs.
Already did not identify a specific shoe it planned to produce outside the covenant’s coverage. The Court also rejected claimed injuries involving investor reluctance, retailer concerns, fear of renewed litigation, and Nike’s continued ownership of the registration because those allegations were not connected to an actual or imminent threat of another trademark enforcement action.
Justice Anthony Kennedy filed a concurring opinion joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Sonia Sotomayor. The concurrence agreed that Nike’s covenant ended the controversy but cautioned that courts must evaluate each covenant according to its precise language and the parties’ commercial circumstances.
The concurring justices emphasized that a narrower promise may leave a trademark challenger exposed to future litigation. They also warned against assuming that every covenant will prevent a party from pursuing a challenge to a trademark registration.
The Supreme Court resolved Already v. Nike on jurisdictional grounds without deciding the underlying infringement, dilution, or validity claims. The following expert witness disciplines were not identified as testifying roles in the Supreme Court proceedings but may be involved when comparable footwear trademark disputes proceed to factual findings.
Branding and Marketing Expert Witness
Branding and marketing experts may analyze consumer recognition, advertising practices, purchasing behavior, and source identification. Their opinions may address whether consumers associate particular product features with one company or may confuse competing footwear designs.
Footwear and Industrial Design Expert Witness
Footwear and industrial design experts may compare the overall appearance, configuration, construction, and individual elements of competing shoes. Their analysis may address the purpose, appearance, and construction of specific components, while the court determines whether asserted features are functional or legally protectable.
Consumer Survey Expert Witness
Consumer survey experts may design and evaluate studies concerning likelihood of confusion, acquired distinctiveness, source association, or consumer perception. Their work may examine how relevant purchasers respond to shoe designs, packaging, advertising, and marketplace presentation.
Economic Expert Witness
Economic experts may assess lost profits, unjust enrichment, licensing value, corrective advertising costs, or other claimed financial losses. Their analysis may rely on sales records, market conditions, pricing data, cost information, and evidence concerning consumer demand.
Trademark Expert Witness
A trademark expert witness may address branding practices, marketplace use, consumer perception, registration procedures, or terminology used within the footwear industry. The expert may also evaluate how marks and product designs are presented in commerce, while the court determines the governing law and ultimate questions of infringement, validity, functionality, and jurisdiction.
Nike Bore the Burden Under the Voluntary Cessation Doctrine
Nike’s decision to withdraw its infringement claims did not automatically end Already’s cancellation action. Because Nike voluntarily stopped the challenged conduct, it had to demonstrate that another covered enforcement action could not reasonably be expected.
The Court therefore examined the covenant’s language and practical reach rather than relying only on Nike’s dismissal request. This placed a demanding burden on Nike, which was the party asserting that later events had eliminated the controversy.
The Covenant Covered Existing and Closely Related Future Products
Nike’s promise extended beyond the “Sugars” and “Soulja Boys” shoes identified in the complaint. It also covered other existing Already footwear and future designs that qualified as colorable imitations of those products.
The covenant further protected related entities, distributors, employees, customers, and other parties connected to Already’s commercial activities. Its breadth reduced the possibility that Nike could resume enforcement against the same commercial conduct under a slightly different theory or against a related party.
Already Did Not Identify a Planned Product Outside the Covenant
Already did not present a specific shoe design that it intended to manufacture or sell beyond the covenant’s protection. Without an identified product, the possibility of another Nike lawsuit remained hypothetical.
This was a central weakness in Already’s jurisdictional position. It could not point to present commercial activity or a concrete future plan that created a credible risk of renewed enforcement.
Alleged Business Effects Did Not Establish Article III Injury
Already referred to investor reluctance, retailer concerns, fear of renewed litigation, and effects on business relationships. The Court concluded that these claimed consequences were not tied to a realistic threat that Nike would file another covered infringement action.
The alleged effects therefore did not satisfy the requirement for an actual or imminent injury. General uncertainty surrounding the continued existence of Nike’s registration was not enough to preserve federal jurisdiction.
Standing and Mootness Address Different Stages of the Dispute
Already had standing to pursue its counterclaims while Nike’s infringement action remained active. The later covenant changed the jurisdictional circumstances by removing the threat of enforcement against the covered products.
The case therefore became moot because subsequent events eliminated the live controversy that had previously supported jurisdiction. The Court’s analysis focused on whether that controversy continued, not whether Already had originally been entitled to bring its counterclaims.
Nike began the lawsuit by alleging that Already’s “Sugars” and “Soulja Boys” footwear infringed and diluted its registered Air Force 1 design mark. Already denied the allegations and filed counterclaims seeking cancellation of Nike’s trademark registration.
Nike later dismissed its claims with prejudice and issued an irrevocable covenant protecting Already and specified related parties from enforcement involving the covered products. The district court dismissed Already’s counterclaims without prejudice, the Second Circuit affirmed, and the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the dismissal on January 9, 2013. The litigation ended without a ruling on infringement, dilution, or the validity of the Air Force 1 registration.
What started the lawsuit between Nike and Already?
Nike sued Already in 2009 after alleging that the “Sugars” and “Soulja Boys” athletic shoes infringed and diluted Nike’s registered Air Force 1 design trademark. Already denied the allegations and challenged the validity of the registration.
Why did Already seek cancellation of Nike’s Air Force 1 trademark?
Already alleged that Nike’s registered design mark was invalid and should be removed from the federal trademark register. It filed cancellation counterclaims while defending itself against Nike’s infringement and dilution allegations.
What did Nike’s covenant not to sue cover?
The covenant protected Already, specified related entities, distributors, employees, and customers. It applied to Already’s existing shoe designs and future products that were colorable imitations of those designs.
Why were Nike’s claims dismissed with prejudice while Already’s counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice?
Nike voluntarily ended its infringement and dilution claims and could not revive them against the covered conduct. Already’s counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice because the courts concluded that Article III jurisdiction no longer existed, not because the counterclaims had been rejected on their merits.
Did the Supreme Court decide whether Nike’s Air Force 1 trademark was valid?
No. The Supreme Court held that the federal courts no longer had jurisdiction over Already’s cancellation counterclaims. It did not rule on trademark validity, infringement, or dilution.
The Supreme Court resolved Already v. Nike on jurisdictional grounds without deciding the underlying infringement, dilution, or validity claims. The following expert witness disciplines were not identified as testifying roles in the Supreme Court proceedings but may be involved when comparable footwear trademark disputes proceed to factual findings.
Branding and Marketing Expert Witness
Branding and marketing experts may analyze consumer recognition, advertising practices, purchasing behavior, and source identification. Their opinions may address whether consumers associate particular product features with one company or may confuse competing footwear designs.
Footwear and Industrial Design Expert Witness
Footwear and industrial design experts may compare the overall appearance, configuration, construction, and individual elements of competing shoes. Their analysis may address the purpose, appearance, and construction of specific components, while the court determines whether asserted features are functional or legally protectable.
Consumer Survey Expert Witness
Consumer survey experts may design and evaluate studies concerning likelihood of confusion, acquired distinctiveness, source association, or consumer perception. Their work may examine how relevant purchasers respond to shoe designs, packaging, advertising, and marketplace presentation.
Economic Expert Witness
Economic experts may assess lost profits, unjust enrichment, licensing value, corrective advertising costs, or other claimed financial losses. Their analysis may rely on sales records, market conditions, pricing data, cost information, and evidence concerning consumer demand.
Trademark Expert Witness
A trademark expert witness may address branding practices, marketplace use, consumer perception, registration procedures, or terminology used within the footwear industry. The expert may also evaluate how marks and product designs are presented in commerce, while the court determines the governing law and ultimate questions of infringement, validity, functionality, and jurisdiction.
Nike Bore the Burden Under the Voluntary Cessation Doctrine
Nike’s decision to withdraw its infringement claims did not automatically end Already’s cancellation action. Because Nike voluntarily stopped the challenged conduct, it had to demonstrate that another covered enforcement action could not reasonably be expected.
The Court therefore examined the covenant’s language and practical reach rather than relying only on Nike’s dismissal request. This placed a demanding burden on Nike, which was the party asserting that later events had eliminated the controversy.
The Covenant Covered Existing and Closely Related Future Products
Nike’s promise extended beyond the “Sugars” and “Soulja Boys” shoes identified in the complaint. It also covered other existing Already footwear and future designs that qualified as colorable imitations of those products.
The covenant further protected related entities, distributors, employees, customers, and other parties connected to Already’s commercial activities. Its breadth reduced the possibility that Nike could resume enforcement against the same commercial conduct under a slightly different theory or against a related party.
Already Did Not Identify a Planned Product Outside the Covenant
Already did not present a specific shoe design that it intended to manufacture or sell beyond the covenant’s protection. Without an identified product, the possibility of another Nike lawsuit remained hypothetical.
This was a central weakness in Already’s jurisdictional position. It could not point to present commercial activity or a concrete future plan that created a credible risk of renewed enforcement.
Alleged Business Effects Did Not Establish Article III Injury
Already referred to investor reluctance, retailer concerns, fear of renewed litigation, and effects on business relationships. The Court concluded that these claimed consequences were not tied to a realistic threat that Nike would file another covered infringement action.
The alleged effects therefore did not satisfy the requirement for an actual or imminent injury. General uncertainty surrounding the continued existence of Nike’s registration was not enough to preserve federal jurisdiction.
Standing and Mootness Address Different Stages of the Dispute
Already had standing to pursue its counterclaims while Nike’s infringement action remained active. The later covenant changed the jurisdictional circumstances by removing the threat of enforcement against the covered products.
The case therefore became moot because subsequent events eliminated the live controversy that had previously supported jurisdiction. The Court’s analysis focused on whether that controversy continued, not whether Already had originally been entitled to bring its counterclaims.
Nike began the lawsuit by alleging that Already’s “Sugars” and “Soulja Boys” footwear infringed and diluted its registered Air Force 1 design mark. Already denied the allegations and filed counterclaims seeking cancellation of Nike’s trademark registration.
Nike later dismissed its claims with prejudice and issued an irrevocable covenant protecting Already and specified related parties from enforcement involving the covered products. The district court dismissed Already’s counterclaims without prejudice, the Second Circuit affirmed, and the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the dismissal on January 9, 2013. The litigation ended without a ruling on infringement, dilution, or the validity of the Air Force 1 registration.
What started the lawsuit between Nike and Already?
Nike sued Already in 2009 after alleging that the “Sugars” and “Soulja Boys” athletic shoes infringed and diluted Nike’s registered Air Force 1 design trademark. Already denied the allegations and challenged the validity of the registration.
Why did Already seek cancellation of Nike’s Air Force 1 trademark?
Already alleged that Nike’s registered design mark was invalid and should be removed from the federal trademark register. It filed cancellation counterclaims while defending itself against Nike’s infringement and dilution allegations.
What did Nike’s covenant not to sue cover?
The covenant protected Already, specified related entities, distributors, employees, and customers. It applied to Already’s existing shoe designs and future products that were colorable imitations of those designs.
Why were Nike’s claims dismissed with prejudice while Already’s counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice?
Nike voluntarily ended its infringement and dilution claims and could not revive them against the covered conduct. Already’s counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice because the courts concluded that Article III jurisdiction no longer existed, not because the counterclaims had been rejected on their merits.
Did the Supreme Court decide whether Nike’s Air Force 1 trademark was valid?
No. The Supreme Court held that the federal courts no longer had jurisdiction over Already’s cancellation counterclaims. It did not rule on trademark validity, infringement, or dilution.
Trademark Infringement
Likelihood Of Confusion
Brand Dilution
Branding
Footwear
Advertising and Marketing
Apparel, +4
Apparel