7-Eleven has filed a federal lawsuit against Nike, alleging the sportswear giant's new Air Max 95 sneaker deliberately imitates the convenience store's signature orange, green, and red color scheme. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Dallas, Texas, also contends that the planned July 11 release date for the shoe, coinciding with the retailer's annual '7-Eleven Day' celebration, is intended to capitalize on brand confusion.
According to the court documents, 7-Eleven argues that the sneaker features a "confusingly similar imitation" of its long-established tri-color stripe design. The company asserts that consumers could wrongly believe the shoe is part of an official collaboration between the two brands. 7-Eleven stated in its filing that Nike has shown "callous and malicious disregard for 7-Eleven's rights."
The Texas-based company claims it attempted to resolve the dispute with Nike before pursuing legal action, but Nike indicated an intention to proceed with the shoe's advertising and planned July 11 release. 7-Eleven has used its distinctive orange, green, and red color combination for decades across its branding and owns numerous trademark registrations for the design. The retailer alleges Nike intentionally created the sneaker to leverage 7-Eleven's brand recognition, pointing to media coverage that has already referred to the shoe as the "7-Eleven shoe."
This is not the first time the companies have released co-branded products. In 2020, Nike and 7-Eleven collaborated on a limited-edition Nike SB Dunk Low, which has since seen significant value increases on the resale market. However, 7-Eleven explicitly states in the lawsuit that the current Air Max release is not affiliated with, licensed, or approved by the company.
7-Eleven is seeking a court injunction to prevent Nike from marketing or selling the sneakers, an order to recall any distributed shoes, and monetary damages including any profits Nike earns from the design. The legal action is centered on trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and violations of the federal Lanham Act. No hearings have yet been scheduled in the case.