Protecting the Swoosh: Sneaker Giant’s Settlement Restricts Customization

In July 2024, Nike sued Dominic Ciambrone, also known as “The Shoe Surgeon,” in federal court in Manhattan for trademark infringement and related claims. Just shy of a year later, in June 2025, the parties reached a settlement, resolving the year-long, $60 million lawsuit for an undisclosed amount.

Background: The Shoe Surgeon, or The Surgeon for short, is a Los Angeles-based sneaker customizer that transformed a passion for shoes into a globally recognized brand.  Once described as “a humble, self-taught cobbler,” The Shoe Surgeon creates “one-of-one” custom designs that cannot be found on the clearance rack at a local sporting goods store.  He takes a recognizable Nike silhouette, such as the iconic Air Force 1, and integrates distinctive patterns or fabrics from luxury brands like Gucci or Louis Vuitton.

The Shoe Surgeon’s prominence in the “sneakerhead” community led to high-profile collaborations with celebrities and athletes.  His website currently states that bespoke projects start at $5,000 and notes that prices vary based on the complexity and details of the project.  Notably recognized for diamond-embellished Super Bowl cleats for Odell Beckham Jr., valued at an astonishing $200,000, before this dispute, Nike collaborated with The Shoe Surgeon on more than a dozen projects, including custom sneakers for LeBron James and Usher.  As The Shoe Surgeon’s popularity grew, however, the relationship with Nike deteriorated.  

The Lawsuit: In the $60 million lawsuit, Nike alleged trademark infringement, counterfeiting, dilution, unfair competition, and related claims stemming from the “unauthorized wholesale usurpation of the Nike brand.”  Nike alleged that The Shoe Surgeon brazenly infringed upon and profited from its intellectual property rights by crafting replica sneakers “from scratch” and selling them as Nike-branded products. The complaint equated the custom sneaker business to an “illicit ‘Nike’ empire” that was “built around the unauthorized use of [its] trademark rights and the associated goodwill that [it has] spent decades accruing.”

Nike acknowledged past collaborations with The Shoe Surgeon but claimed that the business grew from creating relatively innocuous “one-of-one” customizations into a wide-scale trademark infringement scheme.  Nike pointed to The Shoe Surgeon Academy, run by The Shoe Surgeon, which offers kits and classes to help consumers “master shoe customization and shoe creation” with a “tuition” of $3,000 to $5,000 per person.  In Nike’s view, this was not an innocent workshop, but instead a course more appropriately named “Nike Counterfeiting 101.”  

Nike asserts it is not “anti-customization,” provided the work occurs within company-controlled parameters.  The Shoe Surgeon filed a counterclaim that accused Nike of launching a "smear campaign” designed to crush smaller businesses and restrain the creative community.  He disputed Nike’s allegation that the customized sneakers were made “from scratch,” arguing that Nike knew that the sneakers were modified from existing shoes and not counterfeit because of the prior collaborations between the two. The Shoe Surgeon also contended he did not need permission to modify Nike shoes “into art.”   

In a statement to his 1.1 million Instagram followers after the suit was filed, he stated:  “We are confused Nike has chosen litigation over a discussion, but we are confident that with proper dialogue and collaboration, we can resolve this with the new management team and turn it into a win for the culture.”

The Settlement: In a confidential settlement, The Shoe Surgeon agreed to pay Nike an undisclosed sum of money to resolve the dispute.  He acknowledged that its “customization” conduct, which involved using third-party materials not manufactured or sold by Nike, violated the Lanham Act and amounted to common-law trademark infringement.  The settlement allegedly includes restrictions on The Shoe Surgeon’s ability to market, design, or manufacture products featuring Nike trademarks.

The agreement allows The Shoe Surgeon to provide certain “one-of-one” services, so long as there is a written disclaimer clarifying (1) the sneakers are not affiliated with Nike, (2) the customizations may impact the performance of genuine Nike shoes, and (3) such services are provided for personal and non-commercial purposes.

Takeaways: The settlement is unlikely to be a “win for the [sneakerhead] culture” like The Shoe Surgeon may have hoped.  Instead, this may usher in a trend of footwear and fashion brands cracking down on unauthorized modifications, highlighting the ongoing tension between creative expression and trademark protection. Nike claims it is not inherently against customization, but drew the line in the sand to protect its iconic trademarks from the “unauthorized wholesale usurpation of the brand.”  

The Hodgson Russ intellectual property team helps clients protect their intellectual property rights by prosecuting and defending claims of ownership. Hodgson Russ can also help secure trademarks, copyrights, and other protections for businesses and individuals. For more information, please contact Jodyann Galvin (716.848.1520), Fallon Martin (716.848.1594), or any member of our Intellectual Property Litigation Practice Group.

Hodgson Russ Law Clerk Aidan Barczak contributed to this client alert.

Disclaimer: This client alert is a form of attorney advertising. Hodgson Russ LLP provides this information as a service to its clients and other readers for educational purposes only. Nothing in this client alert should be construed as, or relied upon, as legal advice or as creating a lawyer-client relationship.