Nike is reportedly attempting to revive its classic “Total 90” soccer cleat line, but has encountered an unexpected setback.
Total90, LLC has reportedly asserted that Nike is infringing its registered TOTAL90 trademark.
Although Nike originally launched the “Total 90” line in 2000, and once held a corresponding trademark registration, it allowed that registration to lapse in 2019. Total90, LLC now claims that lapse amounted to abandonment, opening the door for it to adopt and register the TOTAL90 trademark. Total90, LLC initially used the name for a fantasy sports app, before expanding into apparel and footwear. After discussions about a possible collaboration broke down, an approach Nike characterized as extortionate, Total 90, LLC filed a lawsuit against Nike, seeking damages for trademark infringement.
Nike secured an early procedural win when Total90, LLC’s request for a temporary restraining order that would have barred Nike from using the “Total 90” name was denied. The judge found insufficient evidence of consumer confusion and highlighted that trademark rights flow from use, not registration alone. Total90, LLC failed to show that Nike had ceased use of the trademark or intended to abandon it.
The dispute underscores the risks inherent in reviving dormant brands. Abandonment can render even storied trademarks vulnerable to third-party registration. At the same time, well-known brands can retain consumer recognition long after they fall out of use, creating tension between marketplace realities and formal trademark rights. Trademark maintenance is more than a mere administrative exercise, but a strategic tool to preserve future brand value.
Authors: Arash Rouhi and Hannah Lee, 2025/2026 Articling Student-At-Law
Photo Credit: https://unsplash.com/@akeenster
Photo Credit: https://unsplash.com/@akeenster
Authors
Expertise
Insights
-
Intellectual Property Litigation
Trademarks Opposition Board Moves to Digital-Only Submission of Confidential Information
As of June 1, 2026, the Trademarks Opposition Board (TMOB) requires all confidential evidence and documentation in proceedings under sections 11.13, 38, or 45 of the Trademarks Act (the “Act”) to be… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
Kansas City Chiefs Stars Sued for Trademark Infringement Over Steakhouse
The sneaker company, 1587 Sneakers, is reportedly suing Kansas City Chiefs players, Patrick Mahomes and Travis Kelce, along with their restaurant partners, for trademark infringement.1587 Sneakers… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
A Pecking Order Problem: Pudgy Penguins Faces Penguin Trademark Lawsuit
As reported by Bloomberg Law News, PEI Licensing (“PEI”), the owner of the Penguin apparel brand, has sued Pudgy Penguins NFT (“Pudgy Penguins”) for trademark infringement.Pudgy Penguins started as a… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
Old Brand, New Problems? Nike’s Attempt to Revive “Total 90” Soccer Cleats
Nike is reportedly attempting to revive its classic “Total 90” soccer cleat line, but has encountered an unexpected setback. Total90, LLC has reportedly asserted that Nike is infringing its… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
A Swing and a Miss: The “All Rise” Trademark Attempt
As reported by Bloomberg, attempts to register marks covering the phrases “All Rise” and “Here Comes the Judge” were rejected by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
Hershey’s Kisses Go to Court – Federal Court of Appeal Decision in PIM Brands Inc. v. Hershey Chocolate & Confectionery LLC
The Federal Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Promotion in Motion, Inc. (PIM Brands, Inc.) v. Hershey Chocolate & Confectionery LLC offers fresh guidance on how courts evaluate survey evidence…