Nike and StockX Reach Confidential Settlement After Counterfeit Claims
Nike and StockX have ended a three-year legal battle over the resale platform’s sale of counterfeit sneakers and the use of Nike images in “Vault” NFTs, resolving the dispute on confidential terms last week in New York federal court.
The settlement cancels a jury trial that had been scheduled for October and dismisses all claims with prejudice, sparing both companies from potentially damaging public scrutiny.
How Did The Lawsuit Begin
The conflict started in February 2022, when Nike filed a complaint in the Southern District of New York, accusing StockX of trademark infringement and dilution.
Nike argued that the company’s Vault NFTs, which featured Nike sneaker images, could mislead consumers into thinking the sportswear brand endorsed the digital tokens.
StockX countered that the NFTs served as digital receipts linked to physical products, not as independent merchandise, saying Nike “misunderstood the various functions NFTs can serve.”
By May 2022, Nike had amended its complaint to include allegations that StockX sold counterfeit sneakers, highlighting concerns about the platform’s authentication processes.
This intensified the dispute, leading to partial summary judgment in March 2025 when Judge Valerie Caproni found StockX liable for selling four fake pairs of Nike shoes to undercover investigators and an additional 33 pairs to a buyer named Roy Kim.
Kim had previously purchased 62 pairs of Air Jordan 1s from StockX and discovered the sneakers were fake after verifying them on other platforms.
StockX Responds to Counterfeit Claims
StockX rejected accusations of willful wrongdoing, noting the small scale of the counterfeit sales relative to its overall operations.
The company said,
“The products in question in this case amount to a mere 0.0004% of the 17.8 million Nike sneakers StockX reviewed while this litigation was ongoing.”
StockX also highlighted its ongoing investment in verification technology, training, and tools, adding that it has prevented more than $80 million in suspected counterfeit sneakers from being sold on its platform since 2016.
The company reaffirmed its Buyer Promise, offering refunds or replacements for incorrect products.
What The Settlement Means for Both Companies
The confidential resolution removes the threat of a court verdict that could have broader implications for StockX’s business and Nike’s brand enforcement strategy.
For StockX, it avoids potential liability over wider misuse of Nike’s intellectual property.
For Nike, it sidesteps the uncertainty of a jury reviewing its trademark and anti-counterfeit practices.
NFTs and Physical Sneakers Under Legal Scrutiny
Analysts suggest the case highlights how tokenised goods are increasingly under legal oversight.
Dan Dadybayo, research and strategy lead at Unstoppable Wallet, noted that the closure of Nike-owned RTFKT in December 2024 had already illustrated the risks of hybrid digital-physical models.
“RTFKT was the most influential phygital studio, blending Nike Cryptokicks, Clone X with Murakami, and experimental sneaker drops.”
He added that the shutdown revealed challenges in brand control and IP compliance.
Hank Huang, CEO of Kronos Research, added that NFTs tied to physical goods now face clearer legal expectations:
“NFTs are no longer a legal gray area… Trademark rights have become essential for building credible, compliant platforms.”
Recent Moves in the Digital and Secondary Market
The Nike–StockX settlement follows other significant shifts in the digital collectible and secondary market.
RTFKT’s shutdown ended its Web3 operations by January 2025, while The Sandbox, a metaverse platform, saw its co-founders step down and Animoca Brands assume full operational control.
The Sandbox’s token, SAND, has lost more than 95% of its value from 2021 highs, highlighting ongoing volatility in digital asset ventures.
By resolving the Nike–StockX dispute, the case leaves a clearer path for resale platforms operating with tokenised goods while signalling that both counterfeit products and unapproved use of trademarks remain a serious legal risk.
Hui Xin
Joy
Jasper
Catherine
Jixu