The Nike v. StockX lawsuit was a federal trademark and counterfeiting case filed by Nike against sneaker resale platform StockX in February 2022 and settled on confidential terms in August 2025, weeks before a jury trial was set to begin. Nike accused StockX of using its trademarks without permission to sell NFTs tied to sneakers, and later of passing off counterfeit shoes as authentic through its verification program. The case ended with a partial win for Nike on the counterfeiting claim and a confidential settlement that resolved everything else.1Bloomberg Law. Nike, StockX Settle NFT, Counterfeiting Lawsuit Ahead of Trial
The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on February 3, 2022, and assigned to Judge Valerie E. Caproni as case number 1:22-cv-00983.2CourtListener. Nike, Inc. v. StockX LLC
What Nike Accused StockX of Doing
The lawsuit began over NFTs. In January 2022, StockX launched a product called Vault NFTs. Each digital token was linked to a specific physical pair of sneakers held in StockX’s warehouse; buyers could trade the token on the Ethereum blockchain or redeem it for the actual shoes.3Harvard Digital Initiative. StockX: Bullish on NFTs’ Potential to Transform Resale Marketplace Economics Nike sued a month later, alleging trademark infringement, trademark dilution, false designation of origin, and unfair competition.
Nike’s complaint said StockX was “blatantly freeriding” on its brand by minting NFTs that prominently displayed Nike marks, including NIKE, JORDAN, DUNK, the Swoosh, and the Jumpman logo, and marketing them as “100% Authentic” in ways that implied Nike had authorized the program.4Heitner Legal. Nike v. StockX Complaint The pricing gap, Nike argued, showed the NFTs were being treated as standalone digital collectibles rather than receipts: a physical pair of Nike Dunk Lows resold for around $282 on StockX at the time, while the matching Vault NFT had traded for more than $3,000.5Katten. Trademark Infringement in the Metaverse: Nike Sues Online Resale Platform The timing mattered to Nike. In December 2021, weeks before StockX’s Vault launch, Nike had acquired RTFKT Studios, a maker of virtual sneakers and NFT collectibles, and had filed trademark applications covering its designs as virtual goods.6CBS News. Nike Metaverse: RTFKT, Nikeland, Roblox, NFT
In May 2022, Nike amended its complaint to add counterfeiting and false advertising claims. Nike said it had bought four pairs of sneakers from StockX within a two-month stretch and all four arrived with StockX’s “Verified Authentic” hangtag despite being fakes.7Sneaker Freaker. Nike StockX Lawsuit: Fake Shoes The evidence grew during discovery. Nike reported identifying at least 77 pairs of counterfeit Nike shoes sold through StockX.8Fashion Dive. StockX Nike Lawsuit Counterfeit
The most damaging evidence came from a collector named Roy Kim, who bought 62 pairs of high-demand Jordan 1s from StockX between March and April 2022, spending over $1 million. Kim ran the shoes through third-party authentication apps; 38 of the 62 failed. Nike’s brand protection team later inspected the pairs and confirmed they were counterfeit, including University Blue, Mocha, and Hyper Royal Jordan 1s. Kim called the situation a “systemic issue” rather than isolated error and said he had no affiliation with Nike and received no compensation from the brand. StockX gave him a full refund and a $500 gift card.9Complex. StockX Fake Sneakers Nike Lawsuit: 38 Pairs
In November 2022, StockX dropped its “Verified Authentic” branding and rebranded the process as “verification,” disclosing that 14 percent of products it rejected during the prior 12 months had been flagged as fake, with 24 percent rejected for manufacturing defects and 16 percent for being used.10Retail Dive. StockX Removes Verified Authentic Sneaker Tags
How StockX Defended Itself
StockX described Vault NFTs as “investible digital assets” tied to specific physical sneakers it had already purchased and authenticated, arguing that trading an NFT on the blockchain was no different from reselling a pair of shoes on any e-commerce site.11Brooks Kushman. Nike v. StockX Case Highlights Many Unanswered Questions About IP and NFTs Legally, StockX leaned on two doctrines. First-sale, it said, permitted use of Nike’s branding because Nike had already placed the underlying physical goods into the market. Nominative fair use, it argued, allowed it to reference Nike’s marks to identify the products it was reselling. StockX maintained that buyers understood throughout that they were purchasing authenticated physical goods, not Nike-endorsed digital products.12The Fashion Law. Nike v. StockX: A Timeline Behind the Trademark Lawsuit
On the counterfeiting side, StockX defended its authentication program and noted that hundreds of Nike employees used the platform.13Venable. Nike StockX Battle Heats Up After the March 2025 ruling, StockX emphasized scale, noting that the 37 counterfeit pairs represented “0.0004% of the 17.8 million Nike sneakers reviewed while this litigation was ongoing.”14Fashion Dive. Nike StockX Counterfeit Lawsuit Trial
The March 2025 Ruling
On March 4, 2025, Judge Caproni issued a partial summary judgment. The court found StockX liable for selling 37 pairs of counterfeit Nike sneakers, four to Nike’s own investigators and 33 to Roy Kim.15Bloomberg Law. StockX Liable for Selling Fake Nike Shoes, Will Face Jury Trial
The rest of Nike’s motion was denied. Judge Caproni rejected Nike’s false advertising, trademark dilution, false designation of origin, and injury-to-reputation claims at summary judgment, and she declined to find that the counterfeiting was willful.16Global Legal Post. Judge Sides With Nike in Counterfeit Dispute With StockX StockX’s own motion for summary judgment was denied entirely. The trademark infringement and false advertising claims involved enough factual disputes to require a jury.12The Fashion Law. Nike v. StockX: A Timeline Behind the Trademark Lawsuit
How the Case Ended
A jury trial was scheduled for October 14, 2025 to set damages on the counterfeiting claim and resolve the remaining trademark and false advertising claims.1Bloomberg Law. Nike, StockX Settle NFT, Counterfeiting Lawsuit Ahead of Trial It never happened. On August 29, 2025, Nike and StockX filed a stipulation of voluntary dismissal, and the court dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning Nike cannot refile the claims.17Sole Retriever. Nike StockX Settle Lawsuit
The settlement terms are confidential. In a joint statement, the companies said only that they had resolved the case “amicably” on confidential terms, with each side bearing its own legal fees and costs.18Business of Fashion. Nike Settles Lawsuit With StockX Over NFTs and Counterfeiting19SGB Online. Nike Inc. and StockX LLC Settle 2022 Lawsuit Over NFT Trademark Infringement Neither company has disclosed whether the resolution required changes to StockX’s business practices.
What the Case Did and Didn’t Resolve
Because the case settled before trial, there is no jury verdict or appellate ruling on the central NFT question the lawsuit raised: whether NFTs linked to physical products should be treated as new digital goods under trademark law or as extensions of the underlying merchandise.11Brooks Kushman. Nike v. StockX Case Highlights Many Unanswered Questions About IP and NFTs Judge Caproni’s counterfeiting finding, holding a major resale platform liable for selling fakes despite its authentication guarantees, is the most concrete legal outcome the litigation produced.
The federal government looked at the broader question separately. In June 2022, Senators Patrick Leahy and Thom Tillis asked the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and the U.S. Copyright Office to study how intellectual property law applies to NFTs. The agencies published their joint report in March 2024, concluding that existing laws were adequate and that NFT-specific legislation would be “premature.” They recommended public education and product transparency rather than statutory changes.20USPTO. USPTO and Copyright Office Conclude Joint Study on NFTs and IP