Nike vs Lululemon
Nike has filed against Lululemon a patent infringement case related to at least four of the apparel company’s shoes that they recently brought to market, in a attempt for Lululemon to gain market share in the sneaker athletic sentiment.
In the complaint that was submitted on Monday, January 30th, in the federal court in Manhattan, Nike made the claim that it has suffered economic harm and irreparable damage to its brand as a result of Lululemon’s sale of the Chargefeel Mid, Chargefeel Low, Blissfeel, and Strongfeel shoes. Nike in addition alleges that this has caused the company to violate its intellectual property rights.
Nike has stated that its three patent claims concentrate on the textile elements that are present on the footwear. These elements include knitted elements, webbed areas, and tubular structures. The functionality of the footwear is addressed in one of the patent claims.
Nike is suing Lululemon for a unspecified amount in damages be awarded to their firm on the basis of this infraction. A legal representative for Lululemon issued a statement on Tuesday in which they adamantly refuted Nike’s allegations, and stated “Nike’s claims are unjustified, and we look forward to proving our case in court”.
In March of 2022, Lululemon, the Canadian company whose headquarters are based in Vancouver, launched its official entry into the competitive and lucrative market for sneakers with the release of Blissfeel, the company’s very first pair of running shoes designed specifically for women. The Chargefeel, the company’s second shoe in its lineup, was released in July for use in running and other types of workouts.
Additionally, in January of 2022, Nike filed a lawsuit against Lululemon, accusing the Canadian clothing manufacturer of infringing on six patents related to its in-home fitness device, the Mirror, as well as related mobile applications. In that lawsuit, Nike is asking for three times the normal amount of damages that would normally be rendered.
Nike asserted that it invented a device that could determine a runner’s speed, calories burned, distance travelled, and amount of time that had elapsed, and the company submitted a patent application for the device in 1983. The user-friendly interactive workout platform Mirror leads users through a variety of exercises, including cardio classes. According to the complaint from Nike, the technology in question enables users to compete against other users, record their performance, and target specific exertion levels. In a statement issued at the time, Lululemon asserted that the patents in question were invalid due to their excessive scope. We are positive about our position and eagerly anticipate the opportunity to defend it in court.