Nike vs BAPE: New Report Reveals Agreement Offered to BAPE in 2009

Another day, another Nike lawsuit. This time, the Swoosh has its sights set on the beloved Japanese streetwear imprint BAPE. Over the years, sneakerheads have hotly debated whether BAPE’s sneaker styles are a little too close to comfort to some of Nike’s big hitters. Still, it’s clear that the Beaverton-based brand agrees, having filed a lawsuit in order to protect its most iconic styles back in January.

According to Reuters, Nike’s federal court lawsuit filing accused BAPE of trademark infringement on the Nike AF1, Nike Dunk and Air Jordan 1, and claimed that BAPE’s entire footwear business “revolves around copying Nike’s iconic designs”. The document also named other BAPE footwear products that bear more than a passing resemblance to Swoosh designs.

Nike claimed that BAPE has been infringing on Nike’s IP since 2005, although new owners have meant that BAPE styles have been much more readily available in the US since 2021. The lawsuit states that “BAPE's copying is and always has been unacceptable to Nike, and because BAPE's infringements have recently grown to become a significant danger to Nike's rights, Nike must act now." It also claimed that BAPE’s design would cause confusion amongst potential customers, citing cases of secondary market sellers referring to BAPE shoes as Air Force 1s.

However, in an effort to fight back, the Japanese imprint has called for the case to be dismissed. According to new reports, BAPE’s lawyers have claimed that the Swoosh has not sufficiently identified the elements of BAPE’s styles that have infringed on Nike’s trade dress - even though Nike has provided a number of photos, drawings and trademark registration numbers as evidence. Furthermore, BAPE claims that the Swoosh approached the brand in 2009 and even offered it a licensing agreement. BAPE later rejected the agreement in an email, as it believed that Nike would not be able to bring any actionable claims against it.

The email present in BAPE’s legal counsel’s letter reads: “We appreciate your efforts in coming over to Japan to discuss and present the license agreement in person…On careful review, the license is not something we can rush to agree to since we do not perceive that Nike would have, at this late date, if at all, any viable or actionable claims against NOWHERE/BAPE.”

As expected, Nike now plans to oppose BAPE’s motion for dismissal.

What are your thoughts on the case? Let us know, and stay locked to The Sole Supplier as more developments come in.