Nike is doubling down on litigation in a fierce battle to protect its patents and trademarks. Here's every brand it has sued in recent years.

In January, Nike sued Lululemon, alleging the company's new footwear line infringed on three Nike patents. The patents, which relate to textiles with knitted elements and webbed areas, were issued to Nike between 2012 and 2017. 

The lawsuit comes as Lululemon is staffing up a new Portland, Oregon, footwear office just miles from Nike's global headquarters in the Portland suburbs.

Lululemon isn't expected to file a legal response to the lawsuit until March 23.

"Nike's claims are unjustified, and we look forward to proving our case in court," a Lululemon spokesperson said in a January statement to Insider. 

Also in January, Nike sued the Japanese streetwear brand A Bathing Ape, commonly known as Bape, alleging trademark infringement. Specifically, the suit alleges violations of Nike's Air Force 1, Jordan 1, and Dunk designs, calling Bape's products "near verbatim copies."

In the lawsuit, Nike noted it has trade dress protection for the Air Force 1, Dunk, and Air Jordan 1.  

Bape is known for its Bape Sta, a sneaker that looks like an Air Force 1, but it features a shooting star instead of a swoosh. 

Bape's lawyers already started fighting back. 

"This dispute goes back almost fourteen years during which Nike has repeatedly failed to identify in detail the nature of its alleged rights in the overall look of its sneakers," Bape's lawyers wrote in a letter to the judge.

The timeline is significant. The longer companies wait to assert trademark rights, the weaker those rights become. 

"That is a very valid argument that would probably weigh in Bape's favor," Briana Enck, an attorney with the firm Ruskin Moscou Faltischek who's written about Nike's use of trade dress protection, told Insider. "It would show that Nike hasn't been protecting, or hasn't been aggressive, in taking a position in protecting their rights."

Last week, Nike ratcheted up the rhetoric. 

In a response to Bape's letter, it said its arguments for trade dress protection are "more than sufficient" and called Bape a "serial copyist of Nike's iconic footwear designs."

In November 2022, Gnarcotic, rapper Lil Gnar's clothing company, announced on social media the upcoming sale of sneakers that resembled Nike Dunks, but with an elephant print. 

Nike has used elephant print on numerous sneakers, most notably on several Air Jordan 3s and a pair of Dunks in 2002 done in collaboration with Supreme. 

Nike sued Gnarcotic a month later, noting it registered trade dress protection for elephant print in 2012 and Dunks in 2009. 

The case was settled three days later. Gnarcotic agreed it would no longer produce any merchandise that infringed on the trademarks. 

Nike filed a lawsuit in November against numerous companies that it alleges are mass counterfeiters. The suit refers to the companies collectively as "The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations."  

The lawsuit, in some form, has been around for years. It's part of Nike's work to crack down on fake Nike sneakers, which in recent years popped up all over e-commerce platforms. Footwear is the biggest category of counterfeit goods, according to the Economist. 

But it's not easy figuring out who's profiting from all those counterfeit Jordans and Dunks, even for a company with Nike's vast resources. 

In the November lawsuit, Nike said the defendants, which go by dozens of generic names, operate in a way that makes it "virtually impossible" for Nike to learn their "true identities and the exact interworking of their counterfeit network."

Nike's push to get more trade dress and trademark protection could be part of its work to crack down on fake sneakers. The lawsuit notes many counterfeit shoes are sold on e-commerce platforms like Amazon, eBay, and others. 

"They're setting up their IP portfolio to be able to do non-litigation enforcement," Josh Gerben, founder of Gerben IP, told Insider. "You want to be able to avoid court."

In November, Nike sued Kool Kiy and some of the company's business partners, alleging infringement on its Air Jordan 1 and Dunk trade dress protections. Kiy is known for a sneaker that looks like an Air Jordan 1, but with a lightning bolt instead of a swoosh. 

Kool Kiy filed a fiery 69-page legal response this month, calling Nike a "trademark troll" and telling the court Nike has a "history of aggressive trademark litigation."

"Nike has engaged in unduly aggressive, disproportionate, highly burdensome litigation strategies against much smaller opponents, where the actual or threatened litigation process itself appears to be a deliberate means of oppression, rather than simply a mechanism to resolve disputes," Kool Kiy's attorneys wrote. 

Kool Kiy's attorneys also argued the company's sneakers are "noticeably different" from Nikes and Nike has done "very little to police" some of the trademarks it alleges Kool Kiy infringed, similar to the arguments made by Bape's attorneys. 

StockX launched NFTs, or non-fungible tokens, in January 2022. An NFT is a digital collectible. StockX's versions are digital versions of physical items purchased from the resale site, including Nike sneakers. 

Nike sued StockX a month later, alleging trademark infringement. It said the StockX NFTs look "authorized by Nike when they are not."

In its legal response, StockX noted its NFTs "prominently" feature the StockX logo and violate "no legitimate right of Nike."

"StockX is just saying, 'We own these sneakers. We just made digital twins so that people could store them in a vault,'" Kenneth Anand, coauthor of "Sneaker Law," told Insider. "It's a very interesting case and I'm curious to see how it plays out."

In May, Nike broadened the lawsuit and said it had purchased at least four counterfeit pairs of  sneakers on StockX. The claim stirred an ongoing debate about StockX among sneaker collectors. 

StockX CEO Scott Cutler has called Nike's claim that it bought counterfeit shoes on the site meritless. StockX also alleged in legal filings that Nike praised the company's authentication process in the past and that the sportswear company has failed to identify what it deems to be a counterfeit product. 

The lawsuit is in the discovery phase. 

Before the recent dustup over footwear, Nike took aim at Lululemon over its Mirror home-fitness machine. In January 2022, Nike sued the company, alleging Lululemon infringed on six patents, issued between 2013 and 2021. 

The patents describe products that let users compete with each other, track their performance, and pinpoint specific fitness goals. 

Lululemon asserted a number of arguments in its defense, including that the technology in question isn't "patent-eligible." 

"The patents in question are overly broad and invalid," a Lululemon spokesperson previously told Insider. "We are confident in our position and look forward to defending it in court."

The lawsuit is in the discovery phase. 

Nike sued California's Drip Creationz, legally known as Customs by Ilene, in July 2021. It said the company was confusing consumers by taking apart Air Force 1s, then putting them back together with different materials and stitching. 

"These unauthorized 'customizations' cause and are likely to cause confusion, mistake, and/or create an erroneous association as to the source, original, affiliation, and/or sponsorship of the products," Nike's attorneys argued in the lawsuit. 

Drip Creationz responded two months later and argued there's "no likelihood of confusion" between its products and Nike's products. 

It also defended itself with the first-sale doctrine, which says a person who buys a trademarked work can sell it, as long as the person legally purchased the work first.

A jury trial is set for October. 

The same day it sued Drip Creationz, Nike sued KickRich, a sneaker customizer.

KickRich sold a variety of products, including a sneaker that looked like a collaboration between Nike and Amazon. Nike said the product, and others sold by KickRich, violated its trademarks and trade dress. 

Nike and KickRich settled in December 2021. 

According to a judgment agreed to by both parties and filed with the court, Nike agreed KickRich could continue to customize Nike sneakers.

KickRich agreed to stop selling any products that would "cause confusion" and "deceive persons into the erroneous belief" that KickRich was selling products licensed by Nike. 

In March 2021, the Brooklyn creative company MSCHF (pronounced "Mischief") sold 666 pairs of "Satan Shoes" that used Nike's Air Max 97 silhouette. The shoe was made in partnership with rapper Lil Nas X. 

Nike immediately sued and asked a federal judge to order MSCHF to destroy the sneakers. The lawsuit settled a few weeks later, but Josh Gerben, attorney and founder of Gerben IP, said it seems to have been a "tipping point" for Nike, motivating the recent wave of litigation.

Intellectual property protections weaken if companies don't consistently enforce them. 

"What Nike's lawyers are likely telling them is you can't pick and choose whether you like it or not," he told Insider. "You have to have a policy that you allow it or do not allow it."

In January 2021, Nike sued La La Land Production and Design. It eventually expanded the lawsuit to include John Geiger, a well-known independent creator and footwear designer. Like other recent Nike lawsuits, it generated headlines. 

Nike alleged that the defendants violated trade dress protections on the Air Force 1 and Dunk. Geiger made a shoe, called a GF-01, that looked like an Air Force 1, but with a stylized "JG" in place of the swoosh. 

The lawsuit settled in August 2022. 

"John Geiger has agreed to modify the design of his GF-01 shoes," Nike and Geiger said in a joint statement after the lawsuit settled. "Nike respects John Geiger as a designer and other designers like him, and both parties are pleased to resolve this dispute in a way that allows John Geiger to continue to build his brand while also respecting Nike's intellectual property rights in its iconic Air Force 1 trade dress."

Geiger continues to sell shoes. 

The release of the gray Nike "Pigeon" Dunk, in 2005 introduced many to the world of sneaker collecting. In a lawsuit filed against streetwear designer Warren Lotas in October 2020, Nike said the limited-edition sneaker, which last sold for $38,000 on StockX, "embodies the DNA of sneaker culture."

In 2020, Lotas announced the upcoming release of a sneaker that looked similar to the "Pigeon" Dunk, but it had an altered swoosh and a design that subtly played off the hockey mask in Friday the 13th movies. Lotas billed his version of the "Pigeon" Dunk as a "reinterpretation" of the original and a custom sneaker.

Nike called it a "fake" that confused consumers. 

In a 22-page legal response, Lotas asserted several arguments in his defense, including that Nike waited too long to assert its rights. 

The lawsuit settled in December 2020. Lotas agreed not to infringe on numerous Nike trademarks and stop the sale of several products, including his take on the "Pigeon" Dunk.