Nike, Inc. v. Fleet Feet, Inc.

“Comparative advertising is allowed — but not misleading association.”

Short Description

Nike, Inc. v. Fleet Feet, Inc. is a trademark and unfair competition dispute concerning comparative advertising and brand association. The case examined whether a retailer’s marketing practices created consumer confusion by implying endorsement or affiliation with Nike, one of the world’s most recognized athletic brands.

Facts

Nike, Inc. is a globally recognized sportswear company and owner of the famous NIKE trademark and “Swoosh” logo. The brand has substantial goodwill and market dominance in athletic footwear.

Fleet Feet, Inc. is a specialty athletic footwear retailer selling various brands, including Nike and competitor products. In its marketing materials and promotional advertisements, Fleet Feet used references to Nike products while promoting alternative shoe brands, allegedly suggesting performance comparisons.

Nike alleged that Fleet Feet’s advertising and promotional practices created a misleading impression that Nike endorsed or was affiliated with certain comparative claims. Nike filed suit alleging trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and unfair competition under the Lanham Act.

Fleet Feet argued that its use of Nike’s mark was purely nominative — meaning it used the trademark only to identify Nike products for comparison purposes — and that comparative advertising is legally permissible.

Findings

The court analyzed whether Fleet Feet’s conduct created a likelihood of consumer confusion, which is the central test in trademark infringement cases. The court examined:

Whether the use of the NIKE mark was necessary to identify Nike products

Whether Fleet Feet used more of the trademark than reasonably required

Whether the marketing suggested sponsorship or endorsement

Whether consumers were likely to believe there was a business relationship between Nike and Fleet Feet beyond normal retail sales

The court emphasized that nominative fair use allows use of a trademark to identify the trademarked product, provided there is no misleading suggestion of endorsement.

Suggestion

Retailers engaging in comparative advertising must ensure that trademark use is limited strictly to identification purposes. They should avoid presentation styles, layouts, or wording that may imply partnership, endorsement, or sponsorship. Trademark owners should evaluate whether the alleged misuse truly causes consumer confusion before initiating litigation.

Judgment

The court found that comparative advertising, when truthful and non-misleading, does not constitute trademark infringement. The decision clarified that the lawful use of a competitor’s trademark for identification or comparison is permissible under the doctrine of nominative fair use, provided it does not create confusion or false association.