In March 2026, a federal jury in the Central District of California ordered sneaker influencer Nicholas Tuinenburg and his streetwear brand Divide The Youth to pay Nike $11 million, closing out the Nike lawsuit against Nicholas Tuinenburg with findings of willful counterfeiting, trademark infringement, and trade dress infringement. Nike had asked for $18 million. The eight-person jury’s verdict was unanimous.
Who Tuinenburg Is and What He Was Doing
Tuinenburg is a social media content creator who founded Divide The Youth, also known as DTY. He didn’t run a conventional storefront. He built an audience around replica sneakers — what the community calls “reps” — using Discord, YouTube, TikTok, and Reddit to point followers toward counterfeit goods.
According to court filings, Tuinenburg ran Discord servers that functioned as marketplaces, maintained a public Google Sheets catalog of replica products, and partnered with Chinese shipping-agent platforms including PandaBuy, WeGoBuy, AllChinaBuy, and SugarGoo. Between 2020 and 2024, those affiliate arrangements paid him $1.22 million in exchange for promotion.1Reed Smith. Nike Wins 11 Million From Counterfeiter Influencer He also co-owned a curated counterfeit-goods catalog site, W2C.net, with another replica influencer.2Case Filings Alert. Nike Trademark Case Complaint
The specific product at the center of the case was the “Division Dunks,” a shoe Divide The Youth sold that closely tracked the silhouette and design of Nike’s Dunk Low. DTY replaced the Swoosh with a star and used its own name on the shoe. Tuinenburg later edited Instagram posts to rename the product “Division Lows,” which Nike characterized as an attempt to cover its tracks.3La Conceria. Nike Defeats Divide The Youth: 11 Million for Copying the Dunks
What Nike Sued Over
Nike filed suit on December 14, 2023, before Judge Andre Birotte Jr., pleading eleven causes of action including federal trademark counterfeiting, trademark infringement, trade dress infringement, and unfair competition under the Lanham Act.4CourtListener. Nike, Inc. v. Nicholas C. Tuinenburg, 2:23-cv-10495 The complaint named both Tuinenburg personally and his company.
The registered marks at issue included the Nike and Air Jordan word marks, the Swoosh and Jumpman design marks, the Dunk word mark, and the Dunk trade dress — the shoe’s overall look, protected independently of any single logo.5The Fashion Law. Nike Secures 11M Verdict in Divide The Youth Influencer-Driven Counterfeit Case Nike also framed the case as bigger than a single copied model. It described Tuinenburg’s Discord servers, affiliate links, discount codes, and purchasing guides as the working infrastructure of an organized counterfeit operation.1Reed Smith. Nike Wins 11 Million From Counterfeiter Influencer
Judge Birotte ruled on Nike’s summary judgment motion on July 2, 2025. The court granted it in part, finding for Nike on counterfeiting, trademark infringement, and unfair competition related to Tuinenburg’s use of Nike’s registered marks, establishing a presumption of willfulness, and awarding Nike attorney’s fees.1Reed Smith. Nike Wins 11 Million From Counterfeiter Influencer The one question left for a jury was whether the Division Dunks infringed Nike’s Dunk trade dress — a question that turned on the shoe’s overall visual impression rather than any logo.4CourtListener. Nike, Inc. v. Nicholas C. Tuinenburg, 2:23-cv-10495
How the $11 Million Verdict Breaks Down
The trial ran March 16 to 19, 2026. The jury found the defendants’ conduct willful across all claims and returned the following awards:
- $8 million against Tuinenburg personally in statutory damages under the Lanham Act for willful counterfeiting of Nike’s registered trademarks.
- $1 million against Tuinenburg in punitive damages for willful trademark infringement and unfair competition.
- $1 million against Divide The Youth in punitive damages for willful infringement of the Dunk word mark.
- $1 million against Divide The Youth in punitive damages for willful infringement of Nike’s Dunk trade dress.1Reed Smith. Nike Wins 11 Million From Counterfeiter Influencer
Tuinenburg’s defense at trial leaned on the branding differences: a star instead of a Swoosh, DTY branding instead of Nike’s, and no claim that the shoes were authentic Nike product. He also pushed back on the scale of the damages, telling the jury that only 384 pairs had sold for about $56,000 in profit.6Complex. Nike Divide The Youth Counterfeit Suit 11 Million The jury didn’t buy it. He was represented by attorney Louise Jillian Paris.4CourtListener. Nike, Inc. v. Nicholas C. Tuinenburg, 2:23-cv-10495
Why the Trade Dress Finding Matters
The most consequential piece of the verdict was on trade dress. The jury concluded that the Division Dunks infringed Nike’s registered Dunk trade dress even though the shoes carried no Nike logos at all. Nike’s Dunk trade dress is registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office under Registration No. 3,711,305.
Tamar Duvdevani, the DLA Piper partner who led Nike’s trial team, said the verdict “confirms that Nike’s Dunk trade dress is infringed even with third party marks replacing the Swoosh.”7DLA Piper. DLA Piper Wins Jury Verdict for Nike in Federal Counterfeiting and Trade Dress Infringement Case That directly addresses a common tactic in the replica market: copy the silhouette, swap out the branded logos, and treat the removal of the marks as removal of the risk. This jury rejected that theory. Nike has pressed the same trade dress theory in other litigation, including a pending case against BAPE in the Southern District of New York, where a federal judge denied a motion to dismiss Nike’s trade dress claims in March 2024.8vLex. Nike, Inc. v. USAPE LLC, 23Civ.660
What It Means for Influencers Who Promote Replicas
The case is one of the first to hold a social media influencer personally liable for building what Nike called a “multi-platform counterfeit ecosystem.” It establishes, on the facts of this record, that an influencer who uses affiliate links, discount codes, catalog spreadsheets, and Discord communities to drive demand for counterfeit products can be treated as an active participant in the distribution chain rather than a bystander commenting on other people’s goods.
Contributory trademark infringement liability can attach when a party knew or should have known about infringing activity and materially contributed to it. Tuinenburg’s conduct fit that framework: the court presumed willfulness at summary judgment, and the jury found willfulness on every claim it decided.5The Fashion Law. Nike Secures 11M Verdict in Divide The Youth Influencer-Driven Counterfeit Case The $8 million statutory damages figure sits well above any profit Tuinenburg claimed he earned from the shoes themselves, which is a reminder that Lanham Act statutory damages for willful counterfeiting are not calibrated to a defendant’s take.
Where the Case Stands Now
As of mid-2026, the case remains in the district court. The docket shows no appeal filed and no record of collection on the $11 million judgment.4CourtListener. Nike, Inc. v. Nicholas C. Tuinenburg, 2:23-cv-10495 Nike was also awarded attorney’s fees at the summary judgment stage, though the final fee amount has not been publicly reported.1Reed Smith. Nike Wins 11 Million From Counterfeiter Influencer The Discord servers and online communities tied to Tuinenburg’s replica operation reportedly remain active.