Art or Infringement? The Line Blurs
The Shoe Surgeon fired back with counterclaims accusing Nike of defamation and unjust enrichment, arguing that their works were modifications of genuine Nike shoes, not illegal replicas. Their legal team asserted the transformations amounted to personal artistic expression—not trademark abuse.
Nike, however, claimed the defendants leveraged past partnerships to cloak their new creations in false legitimacy, misleading consumers into thinking the customs were sanctioned.
Consent Judgment and Conduct Restrictions
As part of the settlement, the defendants acknowledged their conduct violated the Lanham Act and constituted common-law trademark infringement. They also conceded their actions amounted to unfair competition or civil counterfeiting, while expressly denying any criminal wrongdoing.
The deal imposes clear restrictions: Ciambrone and his team must cease creating any customized Nike sneakers or engaging in activities that could cause brand confusion. However, a limited exception allows for the creation of “one of one” noncommercial, personal-use pieces, under strict disclaimers disassociating the work from Nike.
