IP Law Daily, PATENT—E.D. La:. Current owner of registered Total90 mark denied TRO against former registrant Nike, (Dec 2, 2025)

By Kevin M. Finson, J.D.

The current registrant failed to show that Nike had abandoned its TOTAL 90 mark.

A temporary restraining order sought by a registrant of the mark Total90 was denied because the registrant failed to show the defendant had actually abandoned its prior use and because the defendant rebutted the presumption of irreparable harm.

Total90, LLC, the current owner of a registration for the mark TOTAL90, issued in 2022 in connection with apparel and footwear was not entitled to a temporary restraining order against Nike for use of the mark TOTAL 90 on shoes, the U.S. District Court in New Orleans has held. Total90 argued that while Nike had previously held a registration for its TOTAL 90 mark, it had let the registration lapse and abandoned the mark. However, Total90 failed to show a likelihood of success on its trademark infringement claim, because Nike presented evidence of continuous use of TOTAL 90, even after its registration lapsed (Total90, LLC v. Nike, Inc., No. 2:25-cv-02325-WBV-EJD (E.D. La. Nov. 26, 2025)).

Total90, LLC (Total90) was the owner, since 2022, of a federal trademark registration for TOTAL90® for “apparel, footwear, and digital entertainment services that relate to the sport of soccer.” Total90 brought suit against Nike, Inc., alleging that Nike had formerly held a trademark for “TOTAL 90,” but that the registration of this mark had been canceled, the mark had been abandoned, and that Nike subsequently infringed on Total90’s mark. Total90 sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) Nike from use of the TOTAL 90 mark.

Likelihood of success on the merits. The court considered the traditional injunction factors. Total90 argued that it was the senior user of the mark because Nike had abandoned it prior to Total90’s registration. The court found that Nike had provided evidence showing continuous use of the mark even after its registration had lapsed, and that Total90 had failed to show that Nike had abandoned the mark or that Total90 had become the owner. The court also noted that Total90 had not addressed the channels of trade or actual confusion digits of the likelihood of confusion analysis.

Accordingly, Total90 had failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits of its infringement claims.

Irreparable harm. The court also found that Total90 had delayed some 11 months in seeking injunctive relief after initially contacting Nike about the issue, and had done so only after negotiations had failed. This was sufficient to rebut the presumption of irreparable harm, because it showed no emergency existed.

Finding that Total90 had failed to meet its burden on likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm, the court denied the petition for a temporary restraining order without reaching the balance of harms or public interest factors.

The Case is No. 2:25-cv-02325-WBV-EJD.

Judge: Vitter, W.

Attorneys: Jarred Patrick Bradley (The Bradley Law Firm) for Total90, LLC. Connor Peth (Irwin Fritchie Urquhart Moore & Daniels LLC) for Nike Inc.

Companies: Total90, LLC; Nike Inc.

Cases: Trademark LouisianaNews