20 years too late: Nike finally sues BAPE over trademark infringements

By Mason Berlinka

Updated May 30, 2023 at 01:07 PM

Reading time: 2 minutes

40498

The long-standing understanding between Nike and A Bathing Ape (BAPE) has finally come to an end. What was once rumoured in streetwear circles to be a blind eye turned, Nike has now changed its tune, setting its sights on the Japanese label as its next target on its recent crusade against infringement, copies and dupes.

On Wednesday 25 January 2023, Reuters reported that a federal court lawsuit had been filed against BAPE for trademark infringement on Nike’s legendary silhouettes—the Nike Air Force 1, Air Jordan 1, and the Nike Dunk. It cited that “BAPE’s current footwear business revolves around copying Nike’s iconic designs.”

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by A BATHING APE® OFFICIAL (@bape_japan)

For those who don’t follow the streetwear scene closely, BAPE was founded by renowned Teriyaki Boyz DJ, Nigo (who took over as Kenzo creative director in 2022).

The aforementioned is a longtime hip hop collaborator and close friend of Pharrell Williams, with whom he has partnered with on countless occasions. The Japanese label was launched in 1993 and rose to prominence in the following decade as over-the-top and boisterous streetwear began to rule the rap scene. Remember those Shark hoodies? You have Nigo to thank for that.

The multiskilled creative’s legendary BAPE STA debuted on the scene in the early 2000s and sought to capitalise on the popularity of the Nike Air Force 1. And capitalise it did. The shoe bears the same silhouette as Nike’s classic but has subtle differences like the use of patent leather, and BAPE’s own Star design replacing the Nike Swoosh.

Streetwear fans have long speculated as to why Nike never did anything about it sooner, but fashion YouTuber The Casual said on the topic that it simply came down to the fact that US patent law only protects utilities for 20 years. The AF1 first appeared in 1982, and the BAPE STA was available commercially from 2002. Paired with just enough changes to make the shoe different, BAPE has been able to get away with its loving copycat shoe for years.

So, why is the sports industry titan able to go after BAPE now? Nike claims that the company, now owned by Hong Kong retailer I.T Ltd, has “drastically increased the volume and scope of its infringement” since 2021, which up until that point saw sporadic releases.

In a surprising statement found in the lawsuit, what sneakerheads had long speculated over was confirmed, “BAPE’s copying is and has always 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.”

According to Nike, BAPE has “refused” to stop infringing on the multinational corporation’s trademark when asked, which is why it’s now facing legal action. The ultimate aim of the lawsuit is monetary gain for Nike and a subsequent termination of the famous Air Force 1-inspired shoe.

Users online have been speculating over whether or not the courts will rule in Nike’s favour on this, given that it’s let it slide somewhat over the years. Even if US patent law would have made it difficult to challenge, the option was still there for the multi-million dollar company.

This lawsuit is just another battle in Nike’s holy war against copycats, with MSCHF—the controversial art collective behind the Lil Nas X Nike ‘Satan shoe’ —being one of the most talked about targets. Sneaker reselling platform StockX was also met with a Nike lawsuit in 2022.

Nike is trying to secure its future by stopping anyone from stepping on its toes, or in this case—shoes. Is it worth the bad press it’s going to face for chasing after a cherished streetwear name like BAPE? We don’t think so. Thom Browne’s successes against Nike rival Adidas should be enough of a warning sign.

Keep On Reading

By Charlie Sawyer

McDonald’s hit with new mass boycott. Here’s who’s behind it and why

By Charlie Sawyer

Harry Potter TV series crew bewildered over production’s strange decision on location to film iconic scene

By Charlie Sawyer

Another female influencer has been punched in the head in New York. Is it the same attacker?

By Charlie Sawyer

Odd Muse founder Aimee Smale fights back against fast fashion controversy on TikTok

By Eliza Frost

Does the SKIMS Face Wrap actually work, or is it just another TikTok trap?

By Eliza Frost

What is Shrekking? The latest toxic dating trend explained 

By Eliza Frost

Jessie Cave was banned from a Harry Potter fan convention because of her OnlyFans account

By Charlie Sawyer

UK women who miscarry could face home and phone searches following new anti-abortion police guidance

By Eliza Frost

Taylor Swift’s Release Party of a Showgirl is coming to cinemas everywhere, and it’s already made $15M

By Eliza Frost

Did Katy Perry just confirm relationship with ex-Canadian PM Justin Trudeau?

By Eliza Frost

It now takes 20 hours of work a week to survive as a UK university student

By Abby Amoakuh

Campaigners call for gamers who carry out virtual rape in the metaverse to be charged as real-life sex offenders

By Eliza Frost

Netflix is predicting your next favourite show based on your zodiac sign 

By Eliza Frost

Kim Kardashian wants to know how much a carton of milk costs 

By Eliza Frost

American Eagle and Sydney Sweeney face backlash with employee’s LinkedIn post adding fuel to the fire

By Eliza Frost

Netflix’s new Trainwreck documentary exposes the rise and scandalous fall of American Apparel

By Eliza Frost

How to spot a performative male out in the wild 

By Eliza Frost

Misogyny, sexism, and the manosphere: how this year’s Love Island UK has taken a step backwards

By Eliza Frost

How fans manifested Elle Fanning as Effie Trinket in The Hunger Games: Sunrise on the Reaping

By Eliza Frost

Will Belly choose herself in the final episodes of The Summer I Turned Pretty?