In less than a month after designer Kool Kiy filed a counterclaim against Nike, the brand has responded-and the brand isn’t holding back.
Nike has responded less than a month after designer Kool Kiy filed a counterclaim against the brand.
In a filing yesterday in the southern district of New York, Kool Kiy argued Nike’s Air Jordan 1 and Dunk trademarks were invalid and unenforceable, and that Kiy’s designs had been altered sufficiently that they did not infringe. Yesterday, Nike lawyers responded.
Based on Kiy’s self-description in the February counterclaim, Nike asserts that Kiy is not a “cutting-edge design house.” It is not creative or cutting-edge to steal Nike’s designs and replace them with Kiy’s logo. Instead, Kiy has benefited from its intentional theft of Nike’s most iconic designs. Kiy’s counterclaim is littered with incorrect and irrelevant allegations that serve no purpose other than distracting from Kiy’s willful infringement.”
From Kool Kiy’s February counterclaim, a comparison between the Reves and the Air Jordan 1. The US District Court provided this image
Nike’s new filing addresses individual allegations in Kiy’s counterclaim, including its lax enforcement of other brands producing shoes similar to Air Jordan 1s and Dunks.
THIS STORY’S RELATED STORIES
CLICK HERE TO CONTINUE READING
Nike sues Kool Kiy & Omi for trademark infringement
Kool Kiy has filed a counterclaim against Nike’s trademark infringement lawsuit
BENEFITS
The last time Nike sued Bape was 20 years ago
Nike admits that it has not taken any action against the Amiri Skel High-Top, Rhude Recess Hi, and Golden Goose Sky Star despite Kiy’s suggestion that they infringe upon its trade dress registration. In January, the company filed a lawsuit against Bape for selling sneaker silhouettes that are almost verbatim copies of Nike’s.
Watch The Latest Episodes Of Complex Shows & Original Series
According to Nike, Kiy’s February filing “fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a claim.” It asks the court to dismiss Kiy’s counterclaim completely and end the case in its favor. Kiy has been ordered to destroy all product and packaging in order to prevent him from producing or advertising more infringing sneakers. Furthermore, the brand is seeking compensation for damages and related expenses.
A joint letter outlining Nike and Kool Kiy’s respective positions must be submitted by March 27.
Kool Kiy’s February counterclaim argued that Nike’s Air Jordan 1 and Dunk trademarks were invalid and unenforceable, and that Kiy’s designs had been altered sufficiently that they did not infringe in a filing yesterday in the southern district of New York. Nike lawyers responded yesterday.
In response, Nike states that Kiy is not a “cutting-edge design house,” referring to Kiy’s self-description in the February counterclaim. “Stealing Nike’s designs and replacing the Swoosh with Kiy’s logo is not creative or cutting-edge. Rather, Kiy has profited from its intentional theft of some of Nike’s most iconic silhouettes. There is nothing more than an attempt to distract from Kiy’s own willful infringement in Kiy’s counterclaim, which is littered with incorrect and irrelevant allegations.”
A comparison of the Kool Kiy Reves and the Air Jordan 1 from Kool Kiy’s February counterclaim. This image is courtesy of the US District Court
As part of its new filing, Nike addresses individual allegations raised in Kiy’s counterclaim, including its lax enforcement of other brands that produce shoes similar to Air Jordan 1s and Dunks.
STORIES RELATED TO THIS
PLEASE CONTINUE READING
Kool Kiy & Omi sued by Nike for trademark infringement
A counterclaim has been filed against Nike’s trademark infringement lawsuit by Kool Kiy
ADVANTAGES
It’s been 20 years since Nike sued Bape
In response to Kiy’s suggestion that the Amiri Skel High-Top, Rhude Recess Hi, and Golden Goose Sky Star infringe upon Nike’s trade dress registration, Nike admits that it has not pursued any action against those shoes. The company does, however, admit that Bape sells a number of sneaker silhouettes that are almost verbatim copies of Nike’s sneaker silhouettes and that it filed suit against the company in January.
Read MoreComplex Shows & Original Series: Watch The Latest Episodes
A summary of Nike’s argument is that Kiy’s February filing “fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a claim.” It asks the court to dismiss Kiy’s counterclaim completely and end the case in its favor. In order to prevent Kiy from producing or advertising more infringing sneakers, Nike is seeking a court order requiring the designer to destroy all product and packaging. In addition, the brand is seeking compensation for damages and related expenses.
By March 27, Nike and Kool Kiy must submit a joint letter outlining their respective positions.
Leave a Reply