FOLLOW US

Key Takeaways

• New Balance claims Decathlon’s mirrored Kiprun “K” logo looks unmistakably like its famous “N” trademark.
• The lawsuit asks a Massachusetts federal court to stop use of the disputed logo and award monetary relief.
• The case could turn on whether consumers are likely to mistake the Kiprun branding for New Balance or believe the companies are connected.

By Samuel López | USA Herald

New Balance has taken one of the world’s largest sporting-goods retailers to federal court, arguing that a logo appearing on Decathlon’s Kiprun running shoes comes too close to one of the most recognizable letters in the sneaker business.

New Balance Athletics, Inc. filed its complaint against Decathlon America LLC and Decathlon USA LLC on September 15 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The case, New Balance Athletics, Inc. v. Decathlon America LLC et al., No. 1:26-cv-14235, asserts federal trademark infringement under the Lanham Act.

At the center of the dispute is Kiprun’s angular “K” design.

According to New Balance, one orientation of the logo may resemble a stylized K. But when Decathlon mirrors the symbol on the opposite side of its running shoes, New Balance says the result is “unmistakably an N” — placing it uncomfortably close to the Boston-based company’s longstanding footwear trademark.

Decathlon, according to allegations described in the complaint, has maintained that its symbol represents a K rather than an N. New Balance says it began communicating its concerns to Decathlon in January 2026 and asked the company to change or discontinue the disputed design, but Decathlon declined.

That distinction — K or N — may make for an easy visual debate, but trademark law asks a more complicated question.

Under 15 U.S.C. § 1114, infringement can occur when an unauthorized use of a registered mark or a sufficiently similar imitation is likely to cause confusion, mistake or deception in connection with goods or services.

Because the case was filed in Massachusetts, First Circuit precedent is particularly important. Courts in the circuit traditionally examine factors including the similarity of the marks, similarity of the products, sales and advertising channels, the classes of purchasers, evidence of actual confusion, the defendant’s intent and the strength of the plaintiff’s trademark. No single factor necessarily decides the case.

That framework helps explain why New Balance’s complaint does more than simply place the two logos side by side.

The company points to its history with the “N,” which dates to the 1976 New Balance 320 running shoe. New Balance alleges that variations of the mark have appeared on nearly all of its footwear for approximately five decades and says it has spent hundreds of millions of dollars promoting its N-based trademarks while selling hundreds of millions of pairs of shoes bearing them worldwide.

New Balance also cited social-media discussions in which consumers and running enthusiasts remarked on similarities between Kiprun footwear and New Balance shoes. Those posts may help New Balance argue that consumers are already making an association between the designs, although their ultimate evidentiary significance will be for the court to determine.

The stakes extend beyond one logo. Both companies compete in athletic footwear, including performance running shoes, making the dispute one between companies selling similar products to overlapping groups of consumers.

New Balance is seeking an injunction preventing continued use of the allegedly infringing design, destruction of products bearing the disputed mark and monetary relief to be determined through the litigation. The company has demanded a jury trial.

This is not New Balance’s first courtroom fight over its N branding. The company previously brought U.S. trademark lawsuits involving Michael Kors and Nautica that were resolved, and in 2017 obtained an approximately $1.5 million judgment in China in litigation involving its branding.

The Massachusetts docket initially assigned the matter to Magistrate Judge Jessica D. Hedges. The court’s assignment notice states that unless the parties consent to magistrate-judge jurisdiction, the assignment operates as a referral for pretrial nondispositive matters and reports and recommendations on dispositive issues until reassignment to a district judge.

Neither company had publicly provided a substantive response to the lawsuit when the dispute was first reported.

For now, New Balance has made its allegations. Decathlon will have an opportunity to answer them, and the court has not determined that trademark infringement occurred.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Samuel López is an independent news reporter for USA Herald and has reported for the publication since 2022. López is a seasoned legal professional with more than two decades of experience analyzing state and federal litigation and working on complex legal matters.

Enjoyed this report? Stay connected to the stories shaping law, business, national security and science. Get USA Herald’s latest investigations, breaking developments and in-depth analysis delivered directly to you by subscribing to the USA Herald newsletter. Subscribe to USA Herald

Follow USA Herald on X for breaking updates and developing stories. Follow @RealUSAHerald on X