Nike Sued Him for Making 400 Pairs of a Reimagined Air Jordan 1
"How small do you have to be for Nike not to care?"

"Naadier Riles, the founder of Global Heartbreak, is not an independent creator when it comes to footwear—he is a bootlegger," is the opening line of a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court of New Jersey last week by Nike, the world's largest sneaker manufacturer. It's suing Riles, a 26-year-old clothing designer who works out of his apartment in North Brunswick, New Jersey. Known professionally as Naady, he's accused of copyright infringement for selling re-imagined versions of the Air Jordan 1 model.
Nike accused Naady's company of causing it "to suffer irreparable injury to its business," claiming that it "will suffer substantial loss of goodwill and reputation unless and until Global Heartbreak is permanently enjoined from the wrongful acts complained of herein."
Global Heartbreak has produced 400 pairs of Naady's designs over the years, not all of which have been sold; Nike sells approximately 100 pairs of sneakers every four seconds, or 780 million annually.
The lawsuit was "surprising," says Brendan Dunne, editor of the top online sneaker magazine, Sole Collector, since Global Heartbreak's operation is tiny. "I guess nothing is off the table," he told Reason.
Naady's sneaker design replaces the iconic Nike Swoosh with a broken heart pierced by a needle and uses different colors and details, though the shape and mold of the shoe are clearly taken from the Air Jordan 1.
Nike and its law firm, Arnold & Porter, didn't respond to Reason's interview requests, but the complaint states the company has a zero-tolerance policy when protecting its intellectual property. "Nike cannot allow bad actors such as [Riles]…to confuse consumers by building a business on the back of Nike's most famous trademarks, undermining the value of those trademarks and the message they convey."
This latest lawsuit is part of a recent, more litigious strategy by the sneakers giant. Trademarks are typically reserved for words, symbols, or logos used to identify a brand, such as the Swoosh or the phrase "Just Do It"; Nike has started filing trademarks based on the shape and structure of its products. Its most high-profile lawsuit is against the trendsetting Japanese fashion brand A Bathing Ape, or BAPE for short, which had been selling its sneakers for 20 years before Nike accused it of trademark infringement. The company, which operates its own chain and has far more resources than Global Heartbreak, continues to push for the dismissal of Nike's lawsuit, and in the meantime, its sneakers have remained on the market. Smaller designers targeted by Nike have often signed out-of-court settlements, similar to the one offered to Naady, that prevent them from further sale of their shoes.
NYU Law Professor Christopher Sprigman, co-author of The Knockoff Economy: How Imitation Sparks Innovation, told Reason that the derivative designs of the sort sold by Global Heartbreak—known as "trade dress"—are both legal and essential to the creative process. "Copying is what helps set the trend that comes next," he says. "So the fashion cycle runs and the fashion industry's successive waves of innovation depend on copying."
Sprigman appeared in a recent ReasonTV video titled, Why is Nike Stomping On Independent Creators?, which featured Naady's sneakers. After Nike's attorneys watched the video, they sent Naady a cease-and-desist.
Initially, he planned to comply, telling Reason that he'd eat the loss on his unsold shoes and focus on sales of his other merchandise. According to Naady, three weeks later, Nike offered him a confidential settlement, offering 90 days to sell off his inventory, as long as he complied with a list of demands that included publicly posting a statement saying that he was infringing on Nike's intellectual property. Naady balked at that demand; he says that after he couldn't get Nike's lawyers on the phone, he turned to Instagram.
"I'm not signing shit until I get a better agreement from @nike," Naady wrote in a post featuring a crossed-out version of Nike's offered settlement. "Ima keep talking until I get a better offer until then suck dick." He also shared a video of himself setting a pair of his sneakers on fire.
Nike lawyers included a screenshot of Naady's post in their lawsuit.
"It is what it is," Naady told Reason. "I guess I'll take the hit for everybody that had to shut the fuck up. Maybe this is what I had to do to get noticed."
"The amount of money Nike's potentially losing to Global Heartbreak is, of course, minuscule," says Dunne. "It's just like, how small do you have to be for Nike not to care?"
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I admire his professionalism in communicating his position.
Funny. But minus the cussing, it sounds a lot like the stuff Trump puts out there. And it’s far more intelligible than whatever it is Biden tries to say.
In case you haven’t seen his version of the Gettysburg address:
https://twitter.com/TheFirstonTV/status/1750603779886477497
JOE BIDEN: “In beer brew here… Huh ish issah use to make the brew beer here.. Issh Weer-fining… Oooooh Earth Rider… Thanks for the Great Lakes!”
Cunt-a-sad it badder muhself!!!! On the SHELF, with an ELF!!!
I’m making over $7k a month working component time. I saved hearing other people inform me how lots cash they could make online so Qs I decided to look at it. Well, it turned into all proper and has definitely modified my life. Get this today by..
Follow instructions —>>> http://Www.Bizwork1.com
Looks nothing like a Nike shoe to me.
Looks almost exactly like a Jordan 1, but sans the swoop and Jumpman logo I don’t see anyone confusing it with a Nike product unless you’re only seeing it from across the street or something.
Call me crazy, but it looks like a shoe.
All shoes have to look alike, as they have to fit the human foot.
There is no swoosh, so how exactly does it look like “a nike” instead of like “a shoe”?
I believe this is called “capitalism”. Ugottaproblemwiddat?
It’s not “capitalism”. It is that under the law, if you fail to defend your trademark or salesmark, you lose your exclusive right to it, legally. You can license the use of it for 1¢ and preserve it, but fail to defend it and you lose it to “common usage”. There are a lot of cases of infringement that absolutely would not be worthwhile for “capitalists” to pursue if that were not the law.
No where on the Naady shoes does the trademark or salesmark appear.
“Trade dress” allows registration of design elements as trademarks, and the Naady shoes in question use the Nike-trademarked outsole design and Nike-trademarked silhouette.
Now, the silhouette is inherently a pretty weak trademark, given the degree of functional conformity imposed by simply being a shoe. But Naady went and made Nike’s case for them, with his Instagram comment that he “had to use a Nike silhouette to get noticed.”
He didn’t say anything about a silhouette bro – unless there’s more than what the article stated he said.
Also, username checks out
That’s what I learned many years ago. I was told that the worst thing any corporate lawyer could do is let “trivial” infringements slide, because in the eye of the law, no infringement is trivial.
I thought that was what the lawsuit about, but I don’t see any use of Nike’s trademarked symbols.
Apparently they are claiming it’s the very shape of the shoe that is trademarked. And I don’t see how a shape of a shoe could be trademarked. Since it’s ashoe and they all have to be vaguely foot shaped
Apple sued Samsung over how rounded the phone’s corners were. They actually had some kind of design trademark or patent for that, and won.
Yeah, but they just got damages, they didn’t get Samsung phones removed from the market
But it makes me glad that the original tire manufacturer didn’t try to trademark round tires.
I thought Phil Knight was awesome in the 70’s and 80’s with his influence in the running and fitness craze, especially his promotion of the college teams in Oregon.
Once NIKE became overtly corporate and all image, the product was outrageously priced and kept reading fitness magazines ranking other brands significantly better as lower prices.
Haven’t bought the advertising costs in the overpriced shoes for years. This gives me incentive to continue avoidance of the brand.
>>”How small do you have to be for Nike not to care?”
next time make 350 if no lawsuit it’s somewhere in between
No issue with never wearing Nike again. Capitalism is the most democratic process … voting with my wallet. Their shoes suck anyway.
Their shoes are ok, their message is an abortion and their slave labor practices the dumpster fire that houses it.
Oh, for . . .
. . . no, he isn’t, you illiterate buffoon.
He’s accused of “trademark infringement” and “trademark dilution”, page 6 of the brief you guys posted.
Yeah, there’s no allegation of copyright infringement in this lawsuit. We have to at least know what we’re talking about before we talk about it.
From the lawsuit, third paragraph:
Nike became aware of Riles and Global Heartbreak on December 12, 2023, through a video published by ReasonTV, titled “Why is Nike stomping on independent creators?” featuring Riles and Global Heartbreak’s knockoffs. Noticeably missing from ReasonTV’s video is any mention of the law that prohibits the use of another’s trademark in ways that are likely to cause confusion—precisely what Global Heartbreak is engaging in here.
Good job, Reason.
And look, these aren’t unique shoe designs. They’re intentionally mimicking a commercial product for the purpose of being a commercial product that does the same thing. It’s not like making derivative art, where any substantial artwork change can be seen as a commentary on the original. It’s simply taking a specific design, rubbing off the branding, putting your own branding on it, and selling it as if it was your idea. The whole reason his design is desirable is BECAUSE it’s an Air Jordan 1, and recognized as such. If he made a substantially different design with his branding on it, there’s basically no way he could sell them for $150 a pair.
They’re shoes. By definition, they are all foot shaped. Otherwise they wouldn’t be shoes.
Yes, apparently the shape is trademarked. But it’s absurd that it is.
Shoes are more than just “foot-shaped.” They have different design elements-where the different color patterns are, where the seams are, how high they are, the angles of the design elements. The outsoles aren’t just a pure grid, there’s design elements on the bottom of the shoe.
https://reason.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/2024-01-25-DKT-1-Complaint-with-Exhibits.pdf
Just look at the comparison on page 2 and tell me that his design isn’t intentional trying to be a ripoff with just very minor changes in the branding.
Beyond that, he admits that he’s intentionally aping a Nike Air Jordan 1. He wants to make a shoe that looks almost exactly like that thing, except instead of a swoop he has a sweeping diagonal that isn’t QUITE a swoop.
Now, I’m not someone who spends anything at all on shoes for their branding, I’m always looking for the cheapest pair that is functional for what I use them for. I don’t care about these sorts of design elements. But people do. He admits he’s selling a $65 shoe for $150, and the only reason it’s worth $150 is because of the work NIKE did in imagining and creating it, not him. If he just made a shoe that looked functionally nothing like a Nike shoe, he wouldn’t be selling them for that much. It takes actual value from what it’s imitating, and it is functionally the same thing as a Nike shoe used for the same purpose.
If he was selling art pieces that looked like Air Jordans made out of sheet metal, designed to be displayed, I would argue that it’s a sufficiently different item that doesn’t infringe on the trademark. What he’s making instead is an Air Jordan that Nike doesn’t earn any money from and infringes upon their trademark.
They shoulda just hired him. That would make more sense
Why would they hire him? They already designed this shoe. They don’t need someone else to make it just with his name scribbled on it.
I’ve got my opinion on the matter like everyone else. Do I think that he should be sued? Absolutely! Here however is where I diverge. In my way of thinking the copywrite laws and patten laws are too long. Just because Nike or anyone else comes up with a design for a shoe they shouldn’t have the rights to it for the time frame that they currently have. For me, a 2 year period for copyrights and 4 years on a patten is enough. Why you ask? The time frames that I like allow a song or a medicine to make hay while the sun shines. But at the expense of who? The consumer! Competition is good for our economic system. Besides, these creators of shoe design would have to continue to create to have the upper hand. The consumer gets new products that he can be gouged with and also get a great shoe at a discounted price. Let’s not be lazy Nike, innovate!
Headline: Nike Sued Him for Making 400 Pairs of a Reimagined Air Jordan 1
Article: Known professionally as Naady, he’s accused of copyright infringement for selling re-imagined versions of the Air Jordan 1 model.
There’s that journalistic integrity I keep hearing about.
“The amount of money Nike’s potentially losing to Global Heartbreak is, of course, minuscule,” says Dunne. “It’s just like, how small do you have to be for Nike not to care?”
Yea, see, because he’s only stealing a little bit, that makes it OK. Hey Reason, why didn’t you ask Dunne how big he (and other coat-tail riding piggybackers) should be able to become before it’s appropriate for Nike to care?
Broken Windows Theory, guys.
Here is where I differ from most. Considering that his work is an ART WORK, if he purchased actual NIKE product and modified it, they would have no legal argument. Therefore, the question is did he modify his design enough that he was not attempting to sell as a nike product?
Place me on the JURY, NIKE would most likely lose this suit. I have been around for almost 7 decades, there is truly NOTHING NEW in shoes as far as I am concerned. As long as he modified the shoes so that they were not Nike and everyone knew it then I say this is B.S and would award AGAINST NIKE including damages.
there is truly NOTHING NEW in shoes as far as I am concerned. As long as he modified the shoes so that they were not Nike
If your first statement above is true, the condition in the second CANNOT be met.
“How small do you have to be for Nike not to care?”
ZERO.