Federal Judge Blocks Trump Administration’s Medicaid Funding Restrictions Targeting Planned Parenthood 
Judge Dismisses Charges Against Comey and Letitia James After Ruling on Prosecutor’s Appointment 
Afghan Suspect in Deadly Shooting of National Guard Members Faces First-Degree Murder Charge 
Firelight Launches as First XRP Staking Platform on Flare, Introduces DeFi Cover Feature 
U.S. Futures Steady as Rate-Cut Bets Rise on Soft Labor Data 
Dollar Slides to Five-Week Low as Asian Stocks Struggle and Markets Bet on Fed Rate Cut 
Oil Prices Hold Steady as Ukraine Tensions and Fed Cut Expectations Support Market 
Netflix Nearing Major Deal to Acquire Warner Bros Discovery Assets 
Appeals Court Blocks Expansion of Fast-Track Deportations in the U.S. 
China Urged to Prioritize Economy Over Territorial Ambitions, Says Taiwan’s President Lai 
Rio Tinto Raises 2025 Copper Output Outlook as Oyu Tolgoi Expansion Accelerates 
Yellow Corp Reaches Major Settlement With Pension Plans Amid Ongoing Bankruptcy Case 
‘The geezer game’ – a nearly 50-year-old pickup basketball game – reveals its secrets to longevity 
BOJ Faces Pressure for Clarity, but Neutral Rate Estimates Likely to Stay Vague 
Tesla Expands Affordable Model 3 Lineup in Europe to Boost EV Demand 
Dollar Holds Steady as Markets Shift Focus to 2026 Rate Cut Expectations 
Nike lawyers formally replied to designer Kool Kiy’s February counterclaim over the brand’s pending trademark infringement lawsuit in the southern district of New York
Kool Kiy argued that the Swoosh’s Air Jordan 1 and Dunk trademarks were “invalid and unenforceable” and that Kiy’s designs had been altered enough that they did not infringe.
According to Nike, Kiy is not a ‘cutting-edge design house,’ and there is nothing creative or ‘cutting-edge’ about stealing Nike’s designs and replacing the Swoosh with Kiy’s logo.
Nike added that Kiy is instead a serial copyist who has profited from its intentional theft of some of Nike’s most iconic silhouettes.
The brand argued that Kiy’s counterclaim is littered with incorrect and irrelevant allegations and is nothing more than an attempt to distract from Kiy’s willful infringement.
The remainder of Nike's latest filing deals with specific claims made throughout Kiy's complaint, namely its slack enforcement of other companies, which Kiy claims also make footwear similar to the Air Jordan 1 and Dunk.
Although Nike acknowledges that it has not taken legal action against the Amiri Skel High-Top, Rhude Recess Hi, and Golden Goose Sky Star, denies Kiy’s suggestion that the shoes infringe upon Nike’s trade dress registration. Nonetheless, Nike acknowledges that Bape "sells numerous sneaker styles that are almost exact replicas of Nike's sneaker silhouettes covered by Nike's trademark registrations" and mentions that it sued Bape in January.
Kiy's February filing, according to Nike, "fails to articulate facts adequate to create a claim." Nike is asking for a judgment prohibiting Kiy from creating or marketing more infringing sneakers and mandating that the designer deliver all merchandise and packaging to Nike for destruction. The brand is also asking for compensation for damages and related expenses.
