Nike and StockX Settle Landmark IP Battle Over NFTs and Counterfeit Sneakers

Just another day in the digital Wild West—where trademark lawsuits get settled faster than meme coins pump.

The Swoosh strikes back

Nike finally wrestled StockX into submission after years of legal wrangling over unauthorized NFT releases and counterfeit footwear sales. The sportswear giant’s legal team didn’t just play defense—they went full-court press.

Digital assets, real problems

StockX’s Vault NFT program—which tokenized physical sneakers—drew ire for blurring lines between authentic and digital infringement. Nike argued the NFTs diluted brand value and created secondary markets they never approved.

Resolution, but not redemption

The settlement terms remain confidential, but industry watchers suspect StockX conceded more than a degenerate trader after a 50% drawdown. Neither side admitted fault—typical corporate theatre where everyone wins except the consumers who bought questionable digital assets.

Another reminder that in crypto, even IP battles get tokenized—because why sue over physical goods when you can litigate pixelated sneakers?

The decision keeps both companies from a judicial ruling that could hurt them. For StockX, the settlement removes the risk of being found liable for broader misuse of Nike’s brand. For Nike, it avoids the uncertainty of having its IP enforcement strategies looked at by a jury.

A bunch of other claims left hanging

The case began in the Southern District of New York in February 2022  when Nike accused StockX of trademark infringement and dilution. Nike claimed that StockX “Vault” NFTs exploited photos of Nike sneakers without permission to sell tokens related to real shoes.

Nike said at the time that the NFTs are likely to confuse consumers, create a false association between those products, and weaken its trademarks.

However, according to StockX, its Vault NFTs were meant “to track ownership of frequently traded physical products,” not to trick customers. They also said that Nike’s lawsuit showed a fundamental misunderstanding of the various functions NFTs can serve.

Later on, Nike changed its complaint to suggest that StockX was selling fake sneakers. They said the pairs they bought from the site didn’t pass authentication. This strengthened their trademark claims.

In March of this year, Judge Valerie Caproni ruled in Nike’s favor on some of the allegations. The judge claimed that StockX was responsible for selling fake goods connected to four pairs of shoes that Nike’s investigators bought and 33 pairs that a customer named Roy Kim bought.

The verdict left other claims unresolved and prepared the case for trial, but the settlement agreed in late August cut those preparations short.

The legal clarity brought by the case 

The main issue in the Nike-StockX case was whether NFTs are “goods” under the Lanham Act. The US Ninth Circuit agreed with this classification in 2025. 

The settlement is part of a larger trend in the courts to use standard IP rules on NFTs. This has made platforms reassess how they do business. For example, StockX’s 2025 Brand Protection Report said that the site turned down $10 million worth of fake sneakers in 2024 by using RFID and CT scanning technology. 

The settlement has also changed how people invest in blockchain-based trademark protection. As brands try to tokenize their supply chains, venture capital is going to startups that make decentralized verification systems, like Binance and Ripple. In 2025 alone, institutional investors put $4.2 billion into “green NFTs,” which are digital assets that are good for the environment and are tied to real-world projects.

Your crypto news deserves attention - KEY Difference Wire puts you on 250+ top sites