NIKE, INC. v. GLOBAL HEARTBREAK LLC
3:24-cv-00476
D.N.J.Nov 7, 2024Background
- Nike, Inc. sued Global Heartbreak LLC and Naadier Riles for trademark infringement and related claims, alleging the defendants sold “Air Global” sneakers closely mimicking Nike’s iconic Air Jordan 1 designs.
- Nike owns federally registered trade dress rights for the Air Jordan 1 High silhouette and outsole design, which are recognized as famous marks.
- Nike discovered the allegedly infringing sneakers through media and social media posts; defendants promoted their actions online and disregarded cease-and-desist communications from Nike, continuing to market the product after being contacted by Nike.
- Nike filed suit in January 2024 after initial attempts to resolve the issue; defendants were properly served but failed to respond or appear, leading to the court’s entry of default.
- Nike sought default judgment, requesting permanent injunctive relief, $4 million in statutory damages, and litigation costs.
- The court found in Nike’s favor on liability but required further information for the statutory damages amount, granting injunctive relief and costs but deferring on damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trademark Infringement & Unfair Competition | Defendants used marks likely to cause consumer confusion with Nike’s famous marks. | No response/argument made | Default judgment granted for Nike. |
| Trademark Dilution | Air Jordan marks are famous; "Air Global" blurs their distinctiveness. | No response/argument made | Default judgment granted for Nike. |
| Injunctive Relief | Injunction necessary to prevent further irreparable harm. | No response/argument made | Injunction granted. |
| Statutory Damages | $4 million appropriate due to willful infringement and business harm. | No response/argument made | Request denied without prejudice—Nike to supplement damages proof. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hritz v. Woma Corp., 732 F.2d 1178 (3d Cir. 1984) (Courts have discretion to enter default judgment)
- Checkpoint Sys., Inc. v. Check Point Software Tech., Inc., 269 F.3d 270 (3d Cir. 2001) (Elements for trademark infringement)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Summit Motor Prods., Inc., 930 F.2d 277 (3d Cir. 1991) (Test for likelihood of confusion)
- Dranoff-Perlstein Assocs. v. Sklar, 967 F.2d 852 (3d Cir. 1992) (Further development of likelihood of confusion)
- Times Mirror Mags., Inc. v. Las Vegas Sports News, LLC, 212 F.3d 157 (3d Cir. 2000) (Elements for trademark dilution)
- Kos Pharms., Inc. v. Andrx Corp., 369 F.3d 700 (3d Cir. 2004) (Similarity of marks key to confusion)
- Pappan Enters., Inc. v. Hardee's Food Sys., Inc., 143 F.3d 800 (3d Cir. 1998) (Likelihood of confusion establishes irreparable injury)
- Lucent Info. Mgmt., Inc. v. Lucent Techs., Inc., 186 F.3d 311 (3d Cir. 1999) (Federal registration as prima facie evidence of trademark validity and ownership)