IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK NEWS: Owner of TOTAL90 mark sues Nike over use of abandoned TOTAL 90 mark, (Nov 17, 2025)

By WK Editorial Production

Plaintiff Total90 LLC filed a trademark infringement and unfair competition lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana against Nike, Inc. The complaint alleges that the goodwill and reputation for quality that the plaintiff has cultivated with its federally registered trademark and its reputation for high quality clothing and software is being threatened by the defendant's actions in using, and continuing to use, its TOTAL 90 word mark and logo which is confusingly similar to the plaintiff's TOTAL90® word mark and logo to sell competing goods to many of the same customers as the plaintiff. Plaintiff Total90 LLC sought injunctive relief, damages, and other appropriate remedies against Nike (Total90 LLC v. Nike, Inc., No. 2:25-cv-02325-WBV-EJD (E.D. La. filed Nov. 14, 2025)).

Federal trademark infringement claim. Plaintiff Total90 LLC has sold shoes, hats, jerseys, shirts, soccer balls, and other items under Total90 mark since February 24, 2022. Prior to that, plaintiff developed a soccer application, starting work in July of 2019, and has used the TOTAL90® mark continuously in U.S. commerce since then. Plaintiff owns two federal trademark registrations, including Reg. No. 7516774, issued on September 24, 2024, on the principal register of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, for goods including caps, hats, footwear, and jerseys, among others. The second mark is Reg. No. 7496089, issued on September 3, 2024, which is a service mark for entertainment services, including fantasy soccer leagues and information on professional soccer and fantasy soccer. Plaintiff's goods are sold in person and via online sales on its website. Plaintiff's mark has become, through widespread and favorable public acceptance and recognition, an asset of substantial value as a symbol of plaintiff, its quality products, and its goodwill.

According to plaintiff, defendant Nike Inc. has used the confusingly similar trademark TOTAL 90 in interstate commerce in connection with the sale of shoes on about March 1, 2025.The defendant had obtained for a trademark for TOTAL 90 but it was cancelled in April of 2019. Defendant abandoned this mark, plaintiff claims. Defendant sells its shoes and clothing in some of the same trade channels as plaintiff, including online and retail stores. It has advertised its goods on social media and in advertising media. According to the plaintiff, the defendant's overwhelming market presence and marketing power have caused reverse confusion whereby consumers believe that plaintiff's TOTAL90® mark and brand is affiliated with defendant and thereby diminishing the value of plaintiff's registered mark.

Defendant's actions are likely to mislead the public into concluding that its goods originate with, or are authorized by plaintiff, which would damage both plaintiff and the public, according to the complaint. Defendant's use of its TOTAL 90 constitutes willful, deliberate, and intentional trademark infringement, according to the complaint.

Plaintiff has requested, in writing, that defendant cease and desist in its infringing actions, but defendant has not responded to these requests and has failed to comply with them.

Unfair competition claim. The plaintiff also asserts a federal unfair competition claim under the Lanham Act against the defendant. The defendant's unauthorized marketing and sale of its products using its TOTAL 90 mark and logo constitute a use of a false designation of origin or false representation that wrongfully and falsely designates defendant's products as originating from, or connected with, plaintiff, and constitutes the use of false descriptions or representations in interstate commerce. The defendant's actions are alleged to constitute intentional, willful, knowing, and deliberate unfair competition.

Defendant's acts of unfair competition will cause further irreparable injury to plaintiff if it is not restrained by the court from further violation of plaintiff's rights, and plaintiff has no remedy at law. Defendant's conduct also "constitutes reverse confusion and dilution" as Nike's commercial dominance and advertising have overwhelmed plaintiff's smaller mark, causing consumers to associate plaintiff's products with defendant.

State unfair competition claim. As its third ground for relief, plaintiff alleges violation of Louisiana's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, defendant's conduct constitutes unfair methods of competition and deceptive acts in trade or or commerce by reintroducing and marketing its abandoned TOTAL90 mark after plaintiff lawfully registered and invested in the same mark. Defendant's actions were "unethical, deceptive, and intended to confuse consumers" and suppress plaintiff's market presence. According to the complaint, defendant's conduct was knowing and willful, thereby entitling plaintiff to attorney fees and treble damages.

State trademark infringement claim. Plaintiff also alleges trademark infringement under Louisiana law. Plaintiff alleges that defendant's action, reproducing goods with plaintiff's mark and advertising and offering goods for sale, likely to cause confusion with plaintiff's mark. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law for the damages arising from this. According to plaintiff, defendant acted with knowledge that its use of the mark was likely to cause confusion, in light of its prior ownership and abandonment of the same mark and plaintiff's later registration. As a result, plaintiff says it is entitled to damages, profits, and attorney fees.

Request for relief. In light of these allegations, plaintiff seeks a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction enjoining defendant's ongoing use of the infringing TOTAL 90 mark, as well as a permanent injunction. The plaintiff also seeks a court order to require the defendant to deliver up and destroy all devices, literature, advertising, labels, and other materials in their possession bearing the infringing designation. In addition, the plaintiff also seeks an order awarding plaintiff all profits received by defendant from sales and revenues made as a result of willful and intentional infringing actions, with this amount to be trebled after an accounting. Attorney fees, costs, and interest are also sought.

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

Judge: Vitter, W.

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

Companies: Total90, LLC; Nike Inc.

News: Trademark LouisianaNews GCNNews