Nike's promise not to sue
Already v. Nike
In brief
The Supreme Court left in place the ruling that no live dispute remained, ending the case without deciding whether Nike’s trademark was valid.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 9-0 · January 9, 2013 · Opinion by Justice Kennedy
- What it’s about
- Nike sued shoe seller Already, saying its shoes were too similar to Nike’s Air Force 1 design; Already challenged Nike’s trademark.
- Who it affects
- The ruling ended this lawsuit and Already’s trademark counterclaim, but left Nike’s trademark validity undecided.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
After Nike promised not to sue Already, the Supreme Court found no live dispute (the case was moot) and agreed with the Second Circuit; it did not decide whether the trademark was valid.
Nike sued Already over shoes it said were too similar to its Air Force 1 design; Already countered by challenging Nike’s trademark.
Question presented
Did Already's counterclaim create a justiciable controversy sufficient to allow the District Court to exercise subject matter jurisdiction?
What the Court decided
Holding
This case is moot. 663 F. 3d 89, affirmed.
- Result
- Affirmed
The Court's reasoning
The Court found Nike’s promise not to sue left no live dispute (the case was moot).
The vote
What's next
The Second Circuit’s ruling remains in place, and the Supreme Court ordered no further proceedings.
Each side's argument
- Nike
- Nike argued that its promise not to sue Already removed any live dispute.
- Already, LLC
- Already argued that its trademark counterclaim still presented a live dispute.
Documents
Opinions
Audio
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis
AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary
Show 5 moreShow fewer
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Audio Recording added: Oral Arguments - Already, LLC, dba Yums v. Nike, Inc.
Opinion added: Opinion
More questions
- What did Justice Kennedy add?
- He said Nike—not Already—had to show its promise left no reasonable prospect of a future trademark infringement claim.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.