top of page
Search

Nike’s TOTAL90 Trademark Shutdown Comes to a Close After 2026 World Cup

Writer: Katelyn Fuller
Katelyn Fuller
10 minutes ago
8 min read

With the 2026 FIFA World Cup now complete, Nike’s trademark dispute with Louisiana-based soccer brand Total90 LLC has also come to an end.[1] What began as a dispute over the revival of Nike’s iconic TOTAL90 soccer brand ultimately resulted in federal court denying Total90 LLC’s request for a preliminary injunction before the parties settled the litigation in August 2026.

In 2019, Hugh Bartlett, a Louisiana-based engineer and youth soccer coach, planned to develop a soccer fantasy app, after seeing that Nike had allowed its trademark over TOTAL90 to lapse in 2019, Bartlett jumped on the opportunity to register for the iconic brand name.[2][3]


The Legacy of the TOTAL90 Brand


The TOTAL90 line was originally introduced in 2000 as a revolutionary soccer collection, during a period when other brands like Adidas dominated the field.[4][5]brand.[6]


Nike’s use of the TOTAL90 trademark had intensified as the 2026 World Cup approached. After teasing the relaunch in 2024, the company continued to advertise, produce, and sell new clothing, shoes, and accessories under the TOTAL90 [7][8][9]Nike officially reintroduced the brand through a soccer-focused collection in March 2025, including a revival of the Total 90 III model.[10]


The timing of the revival became particularly significant because the 2026 FIFA World Cup was scheduled to take place across the United States, Canada, and Mexico from June 11 through July 19, 2026.[11] The Tournament ultimately concluded on July 19, with Spain defeating Argentia 1-0 after extra time in the final at New York New Jersey Stadium.[12]


From Fantasy App to Footwear: The Rise of Total 90 LLC


Bartlett established Total 90 LLC for his fantasy soccer app. He later expanded to selling apparel and footwear in 2022 and registered Total 90 in that same year.[13][14]Total 90 LLC has sponsored several men’s soccer clubs with its equipment and apparrel from LSU Men’s Soccer Club in Baton Rouge to Cebolaria Football Club in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.[15]


After Nike announced it would revive the TOTAL90 brand ahead of the 2026 World Cup, with the line launching in March 2025, Bartlett reached out about a potential collaboration.[16][17]initial negotiations, Nike offered Total 90 LLC $80,000 for the rights to the “Total 90” name.[18] [19]million and threatened litigation for trademark infringement if rejected.[20] Nike declined the counteroffers, escalating the dispute.[21]


Breakdown of the Suit: Total 90 LLC v. Nike, Inc.


On November 14, 2025, after Nike rejected the $2.5 million counteroffer, Total 90 LLC filed a complaint in the Eastern District of Louisiana claiming that:[22]


  • Nike had and continued to infringe upon Total 90 LLC’s registered trademark in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1114(1)

  • Nike’s use of the TOTAL90 name constituted federal unfair competition under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)

  • Nike’s use also constituted trademark infringement and unfair competition under Louisiana law and violated the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protections Act, La. R.S. 51:1405, et seq.[23]


On the same day, Total 90 LLC also filed an ex parte motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and Preliminary Injunction, seeking immediate relief to stop Nike from selling any TOTAL90 apparel.[24]


Nike opposed the TRO, arguing it had continuously produced, marketed, and licensed TOTAL90 products since 2019, including through its Electronic Arts partnership in its FIFA and FC video game franchise, demonstrating that it never abandoned the mark.[25] The company also filed counterclaims, seeking a declaratory judgment that it had priority rights to the mark, that its use did not infringe Total 90 LLC’s trademarks, and requested cancellation of Total 90 LLC’s registration for allegedly misleading the USPTO by not disclosing Nike’s prior use.[26] Nike also accused Total 90 LLC of extortionist behavior, demanding $2.85 million then $2.5 million while threatening litigation, despite that Bartlett likely knew or should have knew - especially considering he considers himself an avid.[27]


On November 26, 2025, Judge Wendy Vitter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana denied Total 90 LLC’s TRO request.[28] The court found that Total 90 LLC had not met the standard for emergency injunctive relief, nor demonstrated that consumers would likely be confused with Nike’s current use of the TOTAL90 name.[29] Nike’s defense centered on trademark priority and non-abandonment, two issues that became central to Total 90 LLC’s infringement claims.[30]


The dispute then turned in significant part on trademark priority and abandonment, particularly whether Nike’s post-2019 use of the TOTAL90 mark was sufficient to preserve its rights despite the lapse of its federal registration.[31]


Court Denies Total90’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction


The litigation continued into 2026, with Total90 seeking a preliminary injunction that would have prevented Nike from continuing to use the TOTAL90 mark while the case proceeded.[32]

On June 5, 2026, Judge Vitter orally denied Total90’s motion for a preliminary injunction, later issuing written reasons on June 22, 2026.[33] In the written ruling, the court found that Total90 had not carried its burden of establishing the requirements for preliminary injunctive relief, including a likelihood of success on its claims.[34]


A central issue was whether Nike had abandoned the TOTAL90 mark after allowing its federal registration to lapse in April 2019.[35] The court considered evidence that Nike continued to use the mark after the registration lapsed, including Total 90 soccer balls, Total 90 cleat, Total 90 clothing, and evidence concerning a Total 90-branded cleat developed in 2023.[36]


The court concluded that Total90 had failed to establish that Nike abandoned the mark and therefore had not demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on its claim that it was the senior user of TOTAL90.[37] The court separately found that Total90 had not established a substantial likelihood of confusion even assuming it could establish priority.[38]


The court therefore denied Total90’s motion for a preliminary injunction at that stage of the litigation.[39] The ruling did not constitute a final determination of the parties’ ultimate trademark rights.[40] The decision allowed Nike to continue using the TOTAL90 branding while the underlying litigation remained pending.[41]


The World Cup Arrives as the Parties Reach a Settlement


Although the court had denied Total90’s motion for a preliminary injunction, the underlying trademark litigation remained pending after the World Cup. The parties ultimately settled the dispute in August 2026, less than three months after the court denied Total90’s motion for a preliminary injunction.[42]


On August 28, 2026, Nike and Total90 jointly requested that the Eastern District of Louisiana dismiss the case pursuant to their settlement.[43] The terms of the settlement were not publicly disclosed.[44] Because the case was resolved through settlement, the court did not issue a final ruling determining which party ultimately possessed superior rights to the TOTAL90 mark.[45]


What the Dispute Means for Legacy Trademarks?


Although the litigation ended without a publicly disclosed judicial determination on ultimate trademark ownership, the case illustrates the importance of continued use in protecting legacy brands.[46] Nike’s ability to point to evidence of post-2019 use helped undermine Total90 LLC’s argument that Nike had abandoned the TOTAL90 mark.[47]


For companies attempting to revive dormant brands, the case serves as a reminder that even limited continued use can become significant years later when ownership of a legacy mark is challenged.[48] On the other hand, businesses seeking to capitalize on an apparently abandoned, yet iconic, brand – obtaining a new registration may not eliminate the risk of dispute with the mark’s former owner.[49]


The World Cup has now come and gone and so has the courtroom battle surrounding one of soccer’s most recognizable legacy brands.[50] While the settlement leaves precise terms of the parties’ agreement undisclosed, the litigation provided a notable example of how trademark registration and the growing trend of brand revivals can create legal challenges, even for an industry powerhouse like Nike.

 

 References


[2] See Kyle Jahner, Nike Settles Total90 Trademark Suit After Ducking Injunction, BLOOMBERG L. (Aug. 31, 2026), https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/nike-settles-total90-trademark-suit-after-ducking-injunction.

 

[4] See Inti Pacheco, Nike’s Revival of Classic Brand Has a Hitch—Soccer Coach Grabbed the Trademark, WALL ST. J. (Dec. 25, 2025), https://www.wsj.com/business/retail/nikes-revival-of-classic-brand-has-a-hitchsoccer-coach-grabbed-the-trademark-27b28b06.

[5] Daniel-Yaw Miller. The Cultural Significance of Nike’s T90 Relaunch. (March 4, 2025). https://sportsverse.substack.com/p/nike-t90-relaunch-ronaldo-ronaldinho-sneaker-football

 

[6] See Daniel-Yaw Miller, The Cultural Significance of Nike’s T90 Relaunch (Mar. 4, 2025), https://sportsverse.substack.com/p/nike-t90-relaunch-ronaldo-ronaldinho-sneaker-football.

[7] Id.

[8] See Total90, LLC v. Nike, Inc., No. 25-2325, slip op. at 2–3 (E.D. La. June 22, 2026), https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/louisiana/laedce/2:2025cv02325/275409/51.

 

[9] Supra note 19.

[10] See Miller, supra note 5.

[11] See FIFA, supra note 2.

[13] See Total90, LLC v. Nike, Inc., No. 25-2325, slip op. at 2–3 (E.D. La. June 22, 2026), https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/louisiana/laedce/2:2025cv02325/275409/51.

[14] Supra note 2.

[16] See Pacheco, supra note 4.

[17] Id.

[18] See id.

[19] Id.

[20] See id.

[21] See id.

[22] See Compl., Total90, LLC v. Nike, Inc., No. 25-2325 (E.D. La. Nov. 14, 2025); Lux Juris, Total90 LLC Sues Nike for Use of TOTAL 90 Mark (Nov. 20, 2025), https://luxjuris.com/total90-llc-sues-nike-for-use-of-total-90-mark/.

[23] See Compl., Total90, LLC v. Nike, Inc., No. 25-2325 (E.D. La. Nov. 14, 2025).

[24] See Total90, LLC v. Nike, Inc., No. 25-2325, Order and Reasons (E.D. La. Nov. 26, 2025), https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/louisiana/laedce/2%3A2025cv02325/275409/21/.

[25] See Pacheco, supra note 4; Michael McCann, Nike Accuses TOTAL90 of Bad Faith, Extortion in Trademark Battle, SPORTICO (Jan. 15, 2026), https://www.sportico.com/law/analysis/2026/nike-countersues-total90-trademarks-1234881438/.

[26] See McCann, supra note 19; TheFashionLaw, Nike Countersues Soccer Brand to Cancel TOTAL90 Registrations (Jan. 12, 2026), https://www.thefashionlaw.com/nike-countersues-soccer-co-to-cancel-total90-registrations/.

[27] See McCann, supra note 19.

[28] See Total90, LLC v. Nike, Inc., No. 25-2325, Order and Reasons (E.D. La. Nov. 26, 2025), https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/louisiana/laedce/2%3A2025cv02325/275409/21/.

[29] See id.

[30] See id.

[31] See Total90, LLC v. Nike, Inc., No. 25-2325, slip op. at 7–10 (E.D. La. June 22, 2026), https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/louisiana/laedce/2:2025cv02325/275409/51.

[32] See id. at 1–2.

[33] See Annelise Levy, Nike Defeats Bid to Ban Total 90 Name in Soccer Trademark Suit, BLOOMBERG L. (June 9, 2026), https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/nike-defeats-bid-to-ban-total-90-name-in-soccer-trademark-suit; Total90, LLC v. Nike, Inc., No. 25-2325, slip op. at 2, 24 (E.D. La. June 22, 2026), https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/louisiana/laedce/2:2025cv02325/275409/51.

[34] See Total90, LLC v. Nike, Inc., No. 25-2325, slip op. at 15–20 (E.D. La. June 22, 2026), https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/louisiana/laedce/2:2025cv02325/275409/51.

[35] See id. at 7–10.

[36] See id. at 10–15.

[37] See id. at 15–20.

[38] See id. at 20–23.

[39] See id. at 24.

[40] See id.

[41] See id.

[42] See Kyle Jahner, Nike Settles Total90 Trademark Suit After Ducking Injunction, BLOOMBERG L. (Aug. 31, 2026), https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/nike-settles-total90-trademark-suit-after-ducking-injunction.

[43] See TheFashionLaw, Nike Countersues Soccer Brand to Cancel TOTAL90 Registrations (updated Aug. 28, 2026), https://www.thefashionlaw.com/nike-countersues-soccer-co-to-cancel-total90-registrations.

[44] See Jahner, supra note 36.

[45] See id.; Total90, LLC v. Nike, Inc., No. 25-2325 (E.D. La. Aug. 28, 2026).

[46] See Total90, LLC v. Nike, Inc., No. 25-2325, slip op. at 15–24 (E.D. La. June 22, 2026), https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/louisiana/laedce/2:2025cv02325/275409/51.

[47] See id. at 10–20.

[48] See TheFashionLaw, Nike’s Total 90 Win Shows How Thin Use Can Keep a Legacy Trademark Alive, https://www.thefashionlaw.com/nikes-total-90-win-shows-how-thin-use-can-keep-a-legacy-trademark-alive/.

[49] See id.

[50] See FIFA, supra note 2.



Katelyn Fuller (Staff Writer) is a 2L at Villanova Law from Middletown, DE, and the surrounding Philadelphia suburbs. She earned her B.A. in International Relations with a minor in Sport Management from the University of Delaware. At Villanova, Katelyn is involved in the school’s sports and fashion law communities, serving as Secretary of the Sports Law Society and Fashion and Marketing Director of the Fashion Law Society, while also competing on the Baseball Arbitration and Scarpa Corporate Negotiation teams.


Katelyn’s interest in sports law has been shaped by hands-on experience across the industry. During the summer of 2026, she worked in Major League Baseball’s Legal Department with the Global Media team, gaining experience with media rights, licensing, content distribution, and broadcasting. She previously worked at NFL Films as a Licensing and Research Intern and currently serves as a Compliance Extern with Penn Athletics. Katelyn is particularly interested in intellectual property, employment, and corporate law within the sports industry.

Comments

bottom of page