Agreement filed on August 29, 2025, in New York and closure of the dispute between Nike and StockX before the anticipated proceedings.Agreement filed on August 29, 2025, in New York and closure of the dispute between Nike and StockX before the anticipated proceedings.

Nike vs StockX, quick agreement on NFTs: withdrawal with prejudice and 37 counterfeit pairs at the center of the case

Agreement filed on August 29, 2025, in New York and closure of the dispute between Nike and StockX before the anticipated proceedings: the case concludes with dismissal with prejudice of all claims.

The decision remains on record, confirmed by Reuters and court documents related to federal case 1:22‑cv‑00983, which verified the sale of 37 pairs of counterfeit sneakers, a crucial element for the marketplace and brand protection in the digital realm.

It should be noted that the issue is not only legal but also operational.

According to the data collected by our editorial team from the federal docket (1:22‑cv‑00983) and public court documents, the issue of the 37 pairs emerged during the discovery phases and impacted the trial schedule.

Industry analysts note that, following similar rulings, platforms have on average implemented stricter authentication controls within 12–18 months from the public exposure of the litigation, as seen in similar cases discussed in this in-depth analysis.

  • What happened: out-of-court settlement, no hearing, case dismissed with preclusion of new actions on the same facts.
  • Where: at the Federal Court of the Southern District of New York, case file 1:22‑cv‑00983.
  • Why it matters: it sets a practical precedent on how to handle NFTs linked to physical assets and the responsibilities of platforms.

Deal closed in New York: what’s inside

With the filing of the agreement on August 29, 2025, the parties closed the dispute through a dismissal with prejudice, which prevents reopening the same dispute.

The resolution avoided a public verdict, reduced legal costs, and minimized the risk of reputational damage. The economic terms were not disclosed, likely due to confidentiality clauses, a common practice in NFT and intellectual property disputes, as explained in this article.

In this context, the previously scheduled legal proceeding was canceled.

Essential Timeline

  • 2022 – Nike sues StockX for the use of sneaker images in the “Vault” NFT collection.
  • March 2025 – An order by Judge Valerie E. Caproni confirmed the sale of 37 pairs of counterfeit sneakers linked to transactions on the platform; other matters had been deferred to trial.
  • August 29, 2025 – Settlement and dismissal with prejudice in SDNY: the scheduled trial does not take place.

What the provision says

The ordinance recognized liability for the sale of 37 pairs of non-authentic sneakers, which emerged during the checks. Some key aspects remain to be defined, including the use of the trademark in NFTs and potential consumer confusion.

An interesting aspect is that these points did not receive a final judgment, as they were surpassed by the out-of-court settlement. A similar case that delves into the legal profiles of NFTs is available in this analysis.

The controversial issue: NFT-receipts or digital products

The heart of the dispute concerned the nature of the “Vault” NFTs. For Nike, the use of distinctive signs in the tokens produced an unauthorized endorsement effect, potentially misleading about the brand’s actual involvement.

For StockX, however, the NFTs served as digital receipts linked to stored physical goods, tools for traceability and not standalone products.

In the absence of uniform regulatory guidelines, the case shows how platforms must balance information and promotion in the display of third-party trademarks. An in-depth look at NFT regulations is available here.

Impact on Brands and Marketplaces

  • Tighter controls on the supply chain and authentications when NFTs and physical goods are connected.
  • Informative design of digital assets: avoid elements that may suggest a non-existent sponsorship or partnership.
  • Risk management: implement verification logs, audits conducted by third parties, and rapid take‑down procedures in case of counterfeiting.
  • Extend registrations to include digital assets, certifications, and marketplace services.
  • Contractual clauses specific to the use of trademarks, image rights, and usage limits in smart contracts.
  • On-chain watermarking and verification systems that uniquely associate tokens and physical assets.
  • Anti-counterfeiting policy with defined escalation and collaboration with brand protection experts.
  • Due diligence on sellers and creators, with automatic suspension thresholds in case of detected anomalies.

Risks and Responsibilities in the Digital Sneaker Market

The case highlights how a poorly regulated ecosystem can foster counterfeiting, litigation, and increased liability for platforms.

The agreed closure, while avoiding a definitive legal precedent, confirms that intermediation does not exempt from the duty of oversight. In practice, the tolerance threshold for authentication errors is significantly reduced.

What changes today

  • Clearer standards for the connection between NFTs and physical assets: more transparency is needed on ownership, custody, and rights.
  • Supervisory burden for marketplaces: it is now essential to implement pre-screening practices and post-sale checks.
  • Prudent communication: the views and descriptions of digital assets must avoid ambiguous messages about the actual affiliation with the brand.

What remains open

Numerous aspects remain without a definitive ruling: for example, when does an NFT constitute a commercial use of the trademark? What is the boundary of the first sale and how do exemptions apply in the digital realm?

The solution, for now, will be defined case by case and will depend on the processes and interfaces adopted by the platforms. It must be said that the balance between innovation and protection remains delicate.

Market Opportunity
Quickswap Logo
Quickswap Price(QUICK)
$0.009244
$0.009244$0.009244
+1.67%
USD
Quickswap (QUICK) Live Price Chart
Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact [email protected] for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.

You May Also Like

HitPaw API is Integrated by Comfy for Professional Image and Video Enhancement to Global Creators

HitPaw API is Integrated by Comfy for Professional Image and Video Enhancement to Global Creators

SAN FRANCISCO, Feb. 7, 2026 /PRNewswire/ — HitPaw, a leader in AI-powered visual enhancement solutions, announced Comfy, a global content creation platform, is
Share
AI Journal2026/02/08 09:15
Journalist gives brutal review of Melania movie: 'Not a single person in the theater'

Journalist gives brutal review of Melania movie: 'Not a single person in the theater'

A Journalist gave a brutal review of the new Melania documentary, which has been criticized by those who say it won't make back the huge fees spent to make it,
Share
Rawstory2026/02/08 09:08
Facts Vs. Hype: Analyst Examines XRP Supply Shock Theory

Facts Vs. Hype: Analyst Examines XRP Supply Shock Theory

Prominent analyst Cheeky Crypto (203,000 followers on YouTube) set out to verify a fast-spreading claim that XRP’s circulating supply could “vanish overnight,” and his conclusion is more nuanced than the headline suggests: nothing in the ledger disappears, but the amount of XRP that is truly liquid could be far smaller than most dashboards imply—small enough, in his view, to set the stage for an abrupt liquidity squeeze if demand spikes. XRP Supply Shock? The video opens with the host acknowledging his own skepticism—“I woke up to a rumor that XRP supply could vanish overnight. Sounds crazy, right?”—before committing to test the thesis rather than dismiss it. He frames the exercise as an attempt to reconcile a long-standing critique (“XRP’s supply is too large for high prices”) with a rival view taking hold among prominent community voices: that much of the supply counted as “circulating” is effectively unavailable to trade. His first step is a straightforward data check. Pulling public figures, he finds CoinMarketCap showing roughly 59.6 billion XRP as circulating, while XRPScan reports about 64.7 billion. The divergence prompts what becomes the video’s key methodological point: different sources count “circulating” differently. Related Reading: Analyst Sounds Major XRP Warning: Last Chance To Get In As Accumulation Balloons As he explains it, the higher on-ledger number likely includes balances that aggregators exclude or treat as restricted, most notably Ripple’s programmatic escrow. He highlights that Ripple still “holds a chunk of XRP in escrow, about 35.3 billion XRP locked up across multiple wallets, with a nominal schedule of up to 1 billion released per month and unused portions commonly re-escrowed. Those coins exist and are accounted for on-ledger, but “they aren’t actually sitting on exchanges” and are not immediately available to buyers. In his words, “for all intents and purposes, that escrow stash is effectively off of the market.” From there, the analysis moves from headline “circulating supply” to the subtler concept of effective float. Beyond escrow, he argues that large strategic holders—banks, fintechs, or other whales—may sit on material balances without supplying order books. When you strip out escrow and these non-selling stashes, he says, “the effective circulating supply… is actually way smaller than the 59 or even 64 billion figure.” He cites community estimates in the “20 or 30 billion” range for what might be truly liquid at any given moment, while emphasizing that nobody has a precise number. That effective-float framing underpins the crux of his thesis: a potential supply shock if demand accelerates faster than fresh sell-side supply appears. “Price is a dance between supply and demand,” he says; if institutional or sovereign-scale users suddenly need XRP and “the market finds that there isn’t enough XRP readily available,” order books could thin out and prices could “shoot on up, sometimes violently.” His phrase “circulating supply could collapse overnight” is presented not as a claim that tokens are destroyed or removed from the ledger, but as a market-structure scenario in which available inventory to sell dries up quickly because holders won’t part with it. How Could The XRP Supply Shock Happen? On the demand side, he anchors the hypothetical to tokenization. He points to the “very early stages of something huge in finance”—on-chain tokenization of debt, stablecoins, CBDCs and even gold—and argues the XRP Ledger aims to be “the settlement layer” for those assets.He references Ripple CTO David Schwartz’s earlier comments about an XRPL pivot toward tokenized assets and notes that an institutional research shop (Bitwise) has framed XRP as a way to play the tokenization theme. In his construction, if “trillions of dollars in value” begin settling across XRPL rails, working inventories of XRP for bridging, liquidity and settlement could rise sharply, tightening effective float. Related Reading: XRP Bearish Signal: Whales Offload $486 Million In Asset To illustrate, he offers two analogies. First, the “concert tickets” model: you think there are 100,000 tickets (100B supply), but 50,000 are held by the promoter (escrow) and 30,000 by corporate buyers (whales), leaving only 20,000 for the public; if a million people want in, prices explode. Second, a comparison to Bitcoin’s halving: while XRP has no programmatic halving, he proposes that a sudden adoption wave could function like a de facto halving of available supply—“XRP’s version of a halving could actually be the adoption event.” He also updates the narrative context that long dogged XRP. Once derided for “too much supply,” he argues the script has “totally flipped.” He cites the current cycle’s optics—“XRP is sitting above $3 with a market cap north of around $180 billion”—as evidence that raw supply counts did not cap price as tightly as critics claimed, and as a backdrop for why a scarcity narrative is gaining traction. Still, he declines to publish targets or timelines, repeatedly stressing uncertainty and risk. “I’m not a financial adviser… cryptocurrencies are highly volatile,” he reminds viewers, adding that tokenization could take off “on some other platform,” unfold more slowly than enthusiasts expect, or fail to get to “sudden shock” scale. The verdict he offers is deliberately bound. The theory that “XRP supply could vanish overnight” is imprecise on its face; the ledger will not erase coins. But after examining dashboard methodologies, escrow mechanics and the behavior of large holders, he concludes that the effective float could be meaningfully smaller than headline supply figures, and that a fast-developing tokenization use case could, under the right conditions, stress that float. “Overnight is a dramatic way to put it,” he concedes. “The change could actually be very sudden when it comes.” At press time, XRP traded at $3.0198. Featured image created with DALL.E, chart from TradingView.com
Share
NewsBTC2025/09/18 11:00