Nike’s lawsuit against The Shoe Surgeon ended in June 2025 with a consent judgment, a permanent injunction, and an undisclosed payment to Nike, after sneaker customizer Dominic Ciambrone acknowledged that his business of building new shoe uppers from third-party materials while using Nike trademarks amounted to trademark infringement and counterfeiting under the Lanham Act. Ciambrone can still perform limited customization work, but only on authentic Nike shoes, only for personal non-commercial use, and only with a written disclosure that Nike is not affiliated with the work.
What Nike Accused The Shoe Surgeon Of
Nike filed its complaint on July 15, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, before Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald. The case, Nike, Inc. v. S2, Inc. d/b/a The Shoe Surgeon, et al. (No. 1:24-cv-05307), named Ciambrone, his business partner Dallas Imbimbo, and the corporate entities S2, Inc. and Surgeon Worldwide, Inc. as defendants. The complaint asserted seven counts: trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, counterfeiting, false designation of origin, trademark dilution, common-law trademark infringement, common-law unfair competition, and deceptive acts and practices under New York General Business Law § 349. Nike sought more than $60 million in damages.
The central allegation was that Ciambrone had moved well past customizing authentic Nike shoes. According to Nike, the defendants operated brick-and-mortar locations where they cut and sewed fake Swooshes onto new uppers built from third-party materials, then sold the finished shoes as “Nike”-branded products. Nike described the business as an “illicit ‘Nike’ empire” built on the “unauthorized wholesale usurpation of the Nike brand,” and said what had started as “relatively innocuous ‘one-of-one’ customizations” had grown into a “wide-scale trademark infringement scheme.”
Nike also went after The SRGN Academy, which charged $3,000 to $5,000 per student for multi-day classes on deconstructing and rebuilding sneakers. The complaint called the academy “Nike Counterfeiting 101,” alleging it taught students to manufacture new shoes using trade dress and marks “substantially indistinguishable from Nike’s.” Nike pointed to the use of Air Force 1 silhouettes combined with patterns and materials borrowed from luxury houses like Gucci and Louis Vuitton.
Nike was explicit about the line it was drawing. The filing stated the case was “not about one-of-a-kind customizations” but about “widespread infringement that has even crossed into willful counterfeiting of iconic Nike products.”
How Ciambrone Responded
In an Instagram statement after the suit was filed, Ciambrone said he was “confused Nike has chosen litigation over a discussion” and expressed hope the dispute could be resolved and “turn it into a win for the culture.”
His formal answer and counterclaims followed in November 2024. Ciambrone denied the allegations and called them “false allegations” and “deleterious lies” that were part of a “smear campaign.” He maintained that “The Shoe Surgeon never makes and has never made a Nike shoe from scratch” and that he “always starts with authentic Nike shoes” before customizing them. He said the same was true of his classes, which he claimed never taught making a Nike shoe “from anything other than a Nike shoe.”
Ciambrone’s filing leaned on his history with Nike itself. He pointed to an August 2023 letter in which Nike had raised concerns about his work, then argued that Nike kept hiring him afterward, including a commission to build custom Jordan 4s for Usher to wear during the 2024 Super Bowl halftime performance. The counterclaim accused Nike of using the lawsuit to “crush smaller businesses and restrain the creative community,” and claimed Nike’s public statements were “written maliciously and calculated to prevent others from dealing with The Shoe Surgeon.”
Nike moved to dismiss the counterclaim in January 2025. Neither that motion nor an earlier jurisdictional motion from the defendants was ever decided, because the parties settled first.
The Settlement and Permanent Injunction
On June 18, 2025, the parties submitted a proposed consent judgment. Judge Buchwald signed it on June 23, 2025, and the case was closed that day. The defendants also voluntarily dismissed all of their counterclaims with prejudice.
Under the judgment, Ciambrone and his entities acknowledged that Nike is the exclusive owner of its registered trademarks and related rights. They further acknowledged that their “customization” work had involved “creating a brand new ‘upper’ for shoes made from third party materials not sold by Nike and including Nike trademarks that Nike did not manufacture or authorize.” They agreed this conduct amounted to trademark infringement, unfair competition, and civil counterfeiting under the Lanham Act. Judgment was entered in Nike’s favor on all seven counts. Ciambrone also agreed to pay Nike an undisclosed sum.
The permanent injunction bars the defendants from:
- Selling, marketing, or distributing products that bear Nike trademarks or Nike sneaker design trade dress.
- Using Nike marks alongside the “SRGN” name, the company’s skull logo, or other Shoe Surgeon branding.
- Offering “deconstruction” or “reconstruction” classes or workshops that feature Nike’s trademarks.
- Using components or molds to replicate Nike sneaker elements.
- Altering and reselling authentic Nike sneakers in any way that suggests affiliation, approval, sponsorship, or endorsement by Nike.
- Keeping any infringing or counterfeit products on any platform; all must be removed within 30 days.
The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement. If Ciambrone or his companies violate the injunction, Nike can recover legal fees and pursue further remedies. Both sides signed mutual releases waiving further legal action over the case.
The “One of One” Carveout
The injunction leaves a narrow lane open. Ciambrone can still offer limited “one of one” customization, but each job has to meet three conditions. The work must start with an authentic Nike shoe. It must be for personal, non-commercial use. And it must come with a clear, conspicuous written disclosure stating that the work is not sponsored by, affiliated with, authorized by, or honored by Nike, and that the modifications may affect the shoes’ performance.
After the settlement, The SRGN Academy has continued operating. As of 2026, it offers three-hour workshops in New York, Los Angeles, and Las Vegas where participants bring their own sneakers or apparel, along with three-day “Recon Classes.” Its current marketing does not mention Nike by name and refers only to general “shoe customization and shoe creation.”
What the Case Means for Sneaker Customization
The settlement drew a hard line between two kinds of work. Private, owner-driven customization of a single pair of shoes someone already owns is treated differently from a commercial operation that builds inventory, uses a brand’s marks in marketing, and teaches others to replicate trademarked designs. Ciambrone’s admission that his conduct violated the Lanham Act went beyond what a typical settlement establishes, and it put a specific practice on record as counterfeiting: constructing new uppers from third-party materials while keeping Nike branding on the finished product.
The underlying legal framework in the United States is the first sale doctrine, which generally allows the resale of genuine trademarked goods after the first authorized sale. Courts recognize an exception for materially altered products: when the alterations are significant enough that the item is no longer genuinely what the trademark represents, the first sale defense fails. Nike has relied on that exception repeatedly, arguing that materially altered shoes bearing its marks mislead consumers about the source and quality of the product.
The Shoe Surgeon case fits inside a longer enforcement push. Nike sued streetwear designer Warren Lotas in October 2020 over sneakers that mimicked the SB Dunk silhouette; that case settled in December 2020 with a permanent bar on infringing products. In March 2021, Nike obtained a temporary restraining order against MSCHF Product Studio over the “Satan Shoes,” customized Air Max 97s containing human blood, and MSCHF agreed to a voluntary recall at retail price. Nike also sued Customs By Ilene, Inc., doing business as Drip Creationz, that year, stating in that filing that it was acting to “stop ‘customizers,’ like Drip Creationz and others, from making and selling illegal ‘customizations.'” Alongside the lawsuits, Nike has filed trademark registrations covering its shoe silhouettes themselves, including the Air Jordan 1 and applications for the Air Max 90 and several Jordan models, which makes it easier to pursue similar shapes even without a Swoosh.
For customizers, the practical lesson from the Shoe Surgeon case is that one-off modifications to a customer’s own authentic Nike shoes, accompanied by clear disclaimers of non-affiliation, remain on relatively firm ground. Scaling that work into a commercial business that produces inventory, markets with Nike’s trademarks, or teaches replication of Nike’s designs now carries documented legal risk, with a federal consent judgment on the books describing exactly that conduct as counterfeiting.