Nike's 'Swoosh' logo Alamy Stock Photo
High Court
Nike has claimed that 16-year-old’s business infringes on its trademarked ‘Swoosh’ logo.
Jan 15th 2023, 2:23 PM
THE US BASED sportswear giant Nike has filed legal action against a 16-year-old business owner running a sneaker consignment store in Dublin’s city centre.
Brandon Buckley is the owner of the ‘Swoosh Supplied’ shop on Upper Abbey Street, which shares a name with the term Nike uses for its famous logo.
Nike filed plenary action through the High Court to sue Buckley for allegedly infringing on its trademark.
The company began legal proceedings on Thursday through Nike Innovate C.V, the section of Nike which holds its patents and trademarks.
Swoosh Supplied is a consignment store for high-end shoes, with the business’s social media showing that it trades in Nike, Yeezy and Supreme brand trainers as well as several other brands.
Consignment stores operate by providing retailers a place for their unsold products, with the shop-owner and retailer splitting the profits once the item, trainers in this case, is sold.
Nike sent a cease and desist letter to Swoosh Supplied last May according to the shop’s website.
The solicitor’s letter ordered Swoosh Supplied to cease using the Swoosh name and to “immediately assign and transfer control of the domain name www.swoosh.ie to Nike.”
“It has come to our client’s attention that you are operating a footwear, clothing and accessories retail store under the trade mark ‘Swoosh Supplied’/’Swoosh’, promoting and selling Nike’s products without authorisation,” the letter stated.
Solicitors for Nike also argued that the shop’s name “is likely to deceive the public into a mistaken belief” that he was “sponsored, or endorsed by, or otherwise affiliated or connected with Nike, which you are not”.
Nike’s ‘Swoosh’ logo was designed by a student at the University of Portland in 1971 for $35 dollars, the equivalent of$256 or€235 today.
When contacted by The Journal, Swoosh sent its response to May’s cease and desist in which Buckley said that Swoosh Supplied would take on the “David vs Goliath case”.
Buckley described Swoosh, which recently celebrated its one year anniversary in business, as a “business run by a young 16-year-old entrepreneur”.
He added that he had “turned his personal interest and love in sneakers and streetwear into a internet business long before opening up on Upper Abbey Street”.
It is unclear what developments may have taken place between Nike and Swoosh Supplied between May and last week’s court filing.
The Journal contacted Nike and its solicitors on Friday.
For the price of one cup of coffee each week you can make sure we can keep reliable, meaningful news open to everyone regardless of their ability to pay. A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article. Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation.
As a seasoned intellectual property and trademark law expert with a deep understanding of brand protection and legal proceedings, I can shed light on the intricacies of the case between Nike and the 16-year-old business owner, Brandon Buckley, and his sneaker consignment store 'Swoosh Supplied' in Dublin.
Firstly, let's address the fundamental concept of trademarks. Trademarks are distinctive symbols, names, and logos that businesses use to identify and distinguish their goods or services from others in the market. Nike's iconic 'Swoosh' logo, designed in 1971, is a prime example of a well-established trademark that has become synonymous with the brand.
In the article, it's mentioned that Nike has filed legal action against Buckley for allegedly infringing on its trademark. Trademark infringement occurs when a party uses a mark that is confusingly similar to another mark, causing a likelihood of confusion among consumers. Nike, through its legal proceedings, asserts that Buckley's use of the name 'Swoosh Supplied' and the association with Nike's products may mislead the public into thinking there is a connection between the two, a key point in trademark disputes.
The article also touches upon a cease and desist letter sent by Nike to Swoosh Supplied last May. Cease and desist letters are common in intellectual property disputes and serve as a formal demand to stop alleged infringing activities. In this case, Nike's legal team demanded that Swoosh Supplied cease using the 'Swoosh' name and transfer control of the domain www.swoosh.ie to Nike.
Furthermore, the concept of consignment stores is discussed in the article. Consignment stores, like Swoosh Supplied, operate by providing a platform for retailers to sell their unsold products. The store and the retailer typically share profits upon the sale of the items, in this case, high-end shoes from various brands, including Nike.
Buckley's response, framing the situation as a "David vs Goliath case," adds a narrative element to the legal dispute. Such characterizations often play a role in shaping public opinion and can be relevant in trademark cases where the perception of affiliation or endorsem*nt is a crucial factor.
In summary, this case involves the clash between Nike's established trademark rights and a young entrepreneur's business venture, highlighting the complexities of protecting intellectual property in the rapidly evolving world of e-commerce and brand promotion.
