World IP Day: Why IP is the backbone of sporting brands' success

World IP Day, an initiative of the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), seeks to raise awareness of how intellectual property rights shape everyday life. In 2026, WIPO has chosen the theme 'IP and Sports: Ready, Set, Innovate,' turning the spotlight on the extraordinary role that patents, trademarks, designs and copyright play in powering the global sports industry.

From the Swoosh on a sneaker to the FIFA emblem on a World Cup ball; from a team's registered colours to an Olympic broadcaster's exclusive rights; intellectual property is the invisible infrastructure of sport. It funds events, protects athletes' identities, rewards innovation in equipment and technology, and enables the billions of dollars in global commercial value that sport generates each year.

As an IP lawyer, this theme offers a compelling platform to illustrate something that practitioners understand well but the public often overlooks: behind every great sporting moment is a sophisticated web of trade mark registrations, licensing agreements and enforcement actions. There is a whole off-field game that is just as fiercely contested as anything that happens on the field.

Let's dive into several cases that feature top-tier sports brands in IP wars against smaller brands or individuals, exploring the costly mistakes that arise from the slightest errors.

Adidas v Thom Browne: The stripe wars

Perhaps the most significant sports brand trademark ruling of the past year landed in October 2025, when the UK Court of Appeal dismissed Adidas' appeal to reinstate six of its 'three-stripe' trademarks, upholding the earlier judgment confirming that the marks were invalid for lack of clarity and precision.

The core problem was definitional. The decision emphasised that a description covering multiple variations does not meet trademark registration standards, the inconsistencies between the pictorial representations and the written descriptions of these position marks were fatal to the registrations.

The decision is a sharp lesson in the limits of overreach. Adidas has protected its three-stripe logo for many years. Thom Browne, who uses four stripes, has successfully challenged Adidas' attempts to enforce its three-stripe logo. 

Even the most famous marks in the world can be invalidated if the registration is imprecisely drafted. Clarity of description is the foundation of enforceability.

Nike v Total90 LLC: The perils of letting a trademark lapse

In the world of trademarks, abandonment is an open door. In or around 2019, Nike walked away from its Total90 registration; the name that had graced the boots of Wayne Rooney, Roberto Carlos and Fernando Torres, apparently deciding the mark had served its purpose. A Louisiana engineer and youth soccer coach named Hugh Bartlett walked through that open door, registered Total90, and quietly built a brand around it. Then, in March 2025, six months before the World Cup, Nike came back for its boots.

Nike won the first round. A federal judge denied Total90's motion to temporarily restrain Nike from selling its Total 90 line, finding Total90 had not established it was the senior user, since Nike had sold Total 90 shoes for many years. But the case illustrates a concept increasingly common in sports branding disputes – 'trademark arbitrage' where a party acquires an undervalued or lapsed mark and leverages it strategically.

The lesson here is that trademark maintenance is not optional housekeeping. Allowing a registration to lapse, even when a brand believes its common law rights survive, creates a window of vulnerability that can be exploited, particularly by parties who move quickly and invest in building goodwill under the acquired mark.

Nike v StockX: NFTs, counterfeits and a quiet settlement 

Imagine buying a pair of Nike Air Jordans. Now imagine someone else selling a digital certificate, an NFT, proving those shoes are real, without asking Nike. Is that innovation? Is it infringement? Is it both?

StockX built its entire business on a single promise – authenticity. You buy a pair of Nike sneakers on the platform, and StockX guarantees they are real. Then it went one step further, it created a digital token, an NFT, to prove it. A certificate of ownership, living on the blockchain, tied to a physical shoe.

Nike sued StockX for counterfeiting and, more provocatively, for creating NFTs tied to Nike sneakers without Nike's permission. The court found counterfeiting proven. The NFT case was heading for trial. It would have been the first major ruling on whether tokenising a physical branded product requires the brand owner's sign-off.

Then both sides settled quietly in August 2025 with confidential terms.

The NFT trademark question remains legally unresolved. The settlement avoided what could have been a landmark ruling on whether attaching an NFT to a physical branded product requires the brand owner's authorisation. Brands operating in digital spaces and platforms that want to tokenise real-world goods are operating without clear precedent. Watch this space.

Nike v The Shoe Surgeon: 'Just do it, but don't do that!' 

Nike's legal department has certainly been busy. Dominic Ciambrone made diamond-encrusted sneakers for LeBron James with Nike's blessing. He made Gucci-trimmed Air Force 1s for Drake, Dior-themed Air Jordans for clients at $5,000 a pair, and then opened an academy charging people $3,000 to learn how to do the same. Of particular concern was the SRGN Academy he ran, including sale of patterns, lasts and kits. He entered unofficial 'collaborations' with other luxury brands, Dior-themed Air Jordans, Tiffany-inspired customs, using the Nike silhouette as a canvas without Nike's authorisation. 

Nike called it art. Then Nike called it an 'illicit Nike empire'. Then Nike called its lawyers. Nike filed a $60 million lawsuit in federal court. The complaint was longer than 60 pages. It cited more than 30 infringed trademarks and accused the Academy of running a course in what it bluntly called 'Nike Counterfeiting 101'. 

Under the settlement, The Shoe Surgeon acknowledged that Nike's trademarks are valid and enforceable and that his past actions violated federal trademark law. A permanent injunction bars him from producing or selling any product using Nike's trademarks or anything likely to cause consumer confusion. 

The case draws a line between legitimate creative customisation and what Nike characterised as an 'illicit Nike empire'. The settlement allows one-of-one customisations, but only using authentic Nike shoes, with clear disclaimers, and only for personal non-commercial purposes.

Key Takeaways: IP is the backbone of sport branding success

Taken together, these disputes from the last six to twelve months reveal several clear patterns worth highlighting:

• Maintenance matters: Nike's Total 90 headache is a direct consequence of allowing a registration to lapse. In a year when the brand is pushing that very product line for the World Cup, the timing could hardly be worse.
• Precision in registration is everything: Adidas' six invalidated UK marks were not defeated on distinctiveness, they fell on the technical drafting of their descriptions. A trademark that cannot be precisely defined cannot be reliably enforced.

The digital and NFT frontier remains legally unsettled: The Nike/StockX settlement avoided the ruling the industry needed. Brands and platforms will continue to operate in legal grey areas until a court or legislature steps in.