What Just Happened: Nike, a Lapsed Registration, and a Smaller Brand That Moved In
In late June 2026, a federal court in Louisiana issued a ruling that every startup founder and small-business operator should read carefully. Nike persuaded a federal judge to deny Louisiana-based soccer apparel company Total90 LLC an injunction that would have stopped Nike from a "marketing blitz" using the term "Total 90." The case, Total90, LLC v. Nike, Inc. (Case No. 2:25-cv-02325, E.D. La.), reported by Sportico on July 1, 2026, is not just a sports-industry story. It is a master class in how trademark rights actually work, and what happens when a brand stops paying attention to its own IP portfolio.
Here is the short version of a complicated story. Nike has sold a soccer shoe line under the Total 90 name for more than a quarter-century. Nike previously held a registered trademark for Total 90, but the registration expired in 2019. Nike says it allowed the registration to lapse since it did not impact its priority of use.
That lapse opened a door. Total90 claims that Nike abandoned the "Total 90" mark after allowing its U.S. registration to lapse in 2019, leaving room for a new rights holder to step in. Total90 moved to register "Total90" in 2022 and ultimately secured a U.S. registration in September 2024. Then, when Nike reintroduced products bearing the Total 90 mark in March 2025 through a football-focused collection, Total90 sued, alleging trademark infringement and reverse confusion.
Nike claims that Total90 has behaved as an extortionist, allegedly demanding as much as $2.85 million from Nike for the trademark registration or else it would sue. Nike countersued Total90 LLC, which owns the federal trademark for Total90, and accuses it of bad faith conduct and fraudulently obtained trademark registrations.
What the Court Actually Decided, and Why It Matters
In a ruling dated June 22, U.S. District Judge Wendy B. Vitter stressed that ownership of trademarks is generally established by who was first to use a mark rather than who registered it first. The first user is usually deemed the "senior" user, which gives it trademark ownership rights apart from those bestowed by trademark registration.
Nike survived this early round because it could show it never fully stopped using the name. During a hearing on Total90's motion, Nike's senior director of footwear product management testified that Nike "never stopped using the Total 90 brand in the marketplace," noting that since 2019, Nike has released Total 90 soccer balls, a type of Total 90 cleat and various Total 90 clothing. The court found that Nike's evidence of several post-2019 uses of "Total 90," together with testimony that the brand had remained in use, was enough to undercut Total90's abandonment theory.
But here is the critical nuance for founders. Because trademark rights in the U.S. flow from use rather than registration alone, Nike did not need to show a sweeping revival of the brand to undercut Total90's abandonment theory at this stage. Instead, the court treated a relatively thin record of continued use as enough to complicate Total90's effort to establish clean priority and secure emergency relief. For brands sitting on legacy lines, that is the more interesting takeaway: the amount of marketplace activity needed to keep an old mark alive may be lower than a later filer would hope.
Nike is a billion-dollar company with a legal team that could mount that defense. Most founders cannot. Total90 losing in its quest for a preliminary injunction does not mean it has lost the case, which remains on the docket. The two sides will participate in a settlement conference before U.S. Magistrate Judge Michael B. North on July 20, and Judge Vitter has set a trial date for March 1, 2027. This fight is far from over, and the legal costs on both sides are already enormous.
5 Founder Takeaways From the Nike Total 90 Dispute
- Registration and use are two different things, and you need both.
Nike insists that it enjoys other forms of trademark protection, including common law rights. Those rights are protected by state law and case precedent, and they are based on using a trademark in commerce, such as selling a product under a specific brand name. Common law rights are real, but they are much harder and more expensive to prove in court than a live federal registration. Do not let your registration lapse and assume you are covered.
- A lapsed registration is an open invitation.
This sequence, a lapsed trademark, opportunistic registration, and lawsuit, is a textbook example of how "legacy brand" exposure happens when marks are left unprotected. Competitors and opportunistic filers monitor the USPTO database for exactly this kind of gap. When you let a registration expire, someone else can file on that name the next day. Knowing how to search a trademark and monitor existing registrations is not optional. It is a core business function.
- A free trademark search is only the beginning of your due diligence.
Total90 LLC apparently conducted a trademark availability check, found no active Nike registration, and moved forward. That is exactly what a surface-level, free trademark search would show. But a thorough trademark search for non-lawyers goes deeper. It looks at common law use, prior registrations, and whether a brand has been in continuous commercial use even without a live federal filing. If Total90 had done that kind of phonetic trademark search and sound-alike trademark check, it might have spotted Nike's ongoing use and avoided this costly battle entirely.
- Timing your enforcement matters as much as your registration.
The court found that Total90's delay in seeking emergency relief weakened its claim that Nike's use posed an immediate threat. The judge questioned why Total90 "waited nearly 11 months to seek emergency temporary injunctive relief" and noted that Total90 sought "monetary payment to give up its registration of the mark." If you believe someone is infringing your mark, act quickly. Delay signals to courts that the harm is not truly urgent, and it can sink your strongest legal remedy.
- Consumer confusion is the heart of every infringement claim.
Judge Vitter concluded Total90 did not establish a viable claim of trademark infringement, which requires a finding of consumer confusion. She noted that although both companies appeal to soccer fans and sell products through the internet, there is a "substantial difference" between the two. When you are evaluating whether your brand name is too close to an existing one, ask yourself honestly: would a reasonable consumer confuse the two? That question is at the center of every trademark dispute, and it is what a proper trademark search step by step should help you answer before you launch.
What This Means for Your Naming Workflow
This case is a perfect illustration of why the question "is my business name trademarked?" requires more than a quick search USPTO database lookup. The USPTO's current search system, which replaced the older TESS platform, lets you search active and inactive registrations. But it does not automatically surface common law use, unregistered marks, or the kind of thin-but-real commercial activity that saved Nike in court.
Here is what a responsible trademark search step by step actually looks like for a founder:
FAQ
Is this legal advice?
No. This article is informational only and not legal advice.
Where should founders start?
Begin with a practical screening process in Trademark Search.
What should teams do before filing?
Review risk patterns, compare alternatives, and align on a filing plan in Pricing.
Informational disclaimer: this article is educational content and not legal advice.
Quick checklist
- Define naming goals and constraints.
- Screen for similar marks in adjacent categories.
- Compare top alternatives before committing.
- Document a clear go/no-go decision.
What should founders do if a match looks close?
Treat it as a review trigger and compare alternatives before proceeding.
How should teams prioritize multiple candidate names?
Rank names by defensibility, clarity, and strategic flexibility.
When should legal counsel be involved?
Involve counsel before filing and before major spend commitments.