Sneaker company Nike has filed a lawsuit in the Central District of California against Gnarcotic LLC. Nike accuses the defendant of trademark infringement, false designation of origin, unfair competition, and trademark dilution. They believe that the defendant blatantly and knowingly violated trademarks for their famous Nike Dunk sneaker.
The suit concerns Nike’s trademark over the silhouette, sole design, and signature elephant print material of the Nike Dunk.
Nike reached out to Gnarcotic in July of this year, and they state that “Since notifying Gnarcotic of its infringement in July of this year, Nike has attempted to reach a resolution with Gnarcotic that does not involve the continued theft of Nike’s designs. During these discussions, Gnarcotic made representations that it would cease, among other things, selling products that infringe Nike’s intellectual property, and these representations were a cornerstone of Nike’s decision to continue its attempt to resolve this matter amicably.”
The defendant allegedly continued to violate these trademarks, and a second infringement notice was sent by the plaintiff in response to the marketing of the defendants’ Gnarcotic Butterfly Effect V3 “concrete”sneakers. The defendant responded by once again claiming to cease all marketing of the product. However, the defendant allegedly continued to do so under the name Gnarcotic Butterfly Effect V3 and changed the description from concrete to cement in an attempt to skirt the notice.
The plaintiff stated that “Gnarcotic’s conduct constitutes trademark infringement, false designation of origin, unfair competition, and trademark dilution. And the damage to Nike from Gnarcotic’s knockoffs is considerable. Gnarcotic’s knockoffs dilute Nike’s famous trademarks and they confuse, and are likely to confuse, consumers as to the source, origin, affiliation, and/or sponsorship of the products, especially in the post-sale environment. If not stopped, Gnarcotic’s illegal conduct will undermine Nike’s control over its brand, business reputation, and associated goodwill, which it has spent decades building.”.
The plaintiff hopes that their accusation are remedied by the court in the form of a judgment and order preventing Gnarcotic from manufacturing, sale, and marketing of infringing works. They also seek monetary compensation for damages, as well as any profits made from the alleged trademark violations.
The plaintiff is represented by Arnold & Porter.
