Nike previously used the name TOTAL 90 for a football boot line, but its trademark registration was cancelled in April 2019. After cancellation, the name was no longer in commercial use. Under U.S. trademark law, once a mark is no longer used, it loses protection. During that period, Total90 LLC adopted the name TOTAL90 in 2019 for a football app and later expanded its use to apparel and footwear in 2022. The company also secured two federal trademark registrations for the mark.
The conflict arises from Nike’s later conduct. Total90 LLC alleges that in March 2025, Nike began using the name TOTAL 90 again on footwear. By that point, Total90 LLC’s registration and commercial use were established. The plaintiff argues that Nike’s use is likely to cause confusion, particularly because both companies operate in similar retail and digital environments.
Before the lawsuit was filed, the parties communicated. Total90 LLC states that it asked Nike to stop using the name, but Nike did not comply. Negotiations continued until around 10 October 2025, when discussions ended without agreement and the dispute shifted from negotiation to litigation.
Legal Basis of the Claims
The lawsuit rests on four separate legal claims, each explaining why Total90 LLC believes Nike’s use of the name is unlawful.
Federal trademark infringement
The likelihood that consumers may confuse the source of the goods. If someone sees sports footwear named TOTAL 90 and assumes it is connected to TOTAL90, infringement is satisfied.
Federal unfair competition
Nike’s use may lead consumers to believe its products are authorised by or connected to Total90 LLC, even if there is no direct confusion. It addresses misrepresentation of source, sponsorship, or affiliation.
Louisiana trademark infringement
This claim is the Louisiana counterpart to the federal trademark claim and is meant to protect trademarks used and registered in the state.
Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices
It focuses on whether the defendant’s actions are deceptive or improper in a commercial context. In this case, the allegation is that returning to a mark after abandoning it, once another party lawfully adopted it, constitutes an unfair business practice.
Remedies Requested
Total90 LLC is asking the court to stop Nike from using the disputed name, remove it from products and marketing materials, and award financial damages including profits earned from the contested use. Because the conduct is described as intentional, the plaintiff is also seeking increased damages and legal fees.
Why This Matters for Brands
The dispute highlights a core principle relevant to fashion, lifestyle, and product-based businesses, trademark rights are not indefinite unless they are continuously used. When a mark is no longer used and is cancelled, it becomes open for others to adopt, commercialise, and register.
If a larger brand later begins using that same name, the consequences can extend beyond confusion. The smaller rights holder may lose visibility in the market, its commercial position may weaken, and customers may assume it is the later entrant or connected to the larger company, despite holding the valid registration. In such circumstances, the impact is not simply a naming conflict but a loss of identity and and market position.
Conclusion
The dispute remains at the early stage and Nike has not yet filed a response. As the case progresses, the key question will not be who first used the name historically, but who holds enforceable rights now. The lesson for brands remains straightforward, trademark protection depends on ongoing use and enforcement. Use it, protect it, or lose it. Once lost, it may not return.
Source: