Nike pulled an Air Max 95 from SNKRS within hours of being sued — over a colorway that borrowed 7-Eleven’s stripes and a launch date that landed on the retailer’s own Slurpee holiday.
7-Eleven has sued Nike for trademark infringement, arguing that an Air Max 95 scheduled to launch July 11 borrows too closely from the convenience chain’s orange, green and red “Tri Color Mark.” The suit, filed July 1 in the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas (case 3:26-cv-02201), comes 10 days before the planned release date, which coincides with “7-Eleven Day,” the retailer’s annual free Slurpee promotion.
A pack built on homage, without a partnership
The shoe is part of Nike’s “Big Bubble” pack: two Air Max 95 colorways inspired by convenience store chains popular in Japan, one echoing 7-Eleven’s palette and the other referencing rival chain Lawson in blue, white and red. Neither is tied to an official collaboration, and that is central to 7-Eleven’s complaint. The filing cites sneaker and trade coverage that called the shoe “instantly recognizable” and effectively labeled it “the 7-Eleven shoe,” which 7-Eleven says shows real consumer confusion, not a hypothetical risk.
The legal claims and 7-Eleven’s requests
7-Eleven says it holds multiple federal trademark registrations covering the color combination, some dating back to the late 1990s, and asserts seven causes of action spanning federal trademark infringement, dilution and unfair competition, along with related Texas state law claims. The complaint points to 7-Eleven’s history of licensed footwear collaborations with Crocs, Sunday Golf, Breezy Golf and DGK, arguing that shoppers seeing the tri color pattern could reasonably assume Nike’s release was authorized.
7-Eleven says it first spotted the shoe in mid June via Nike’s SNKRS app, tried to resolve the matter privately, and was told Nike intended to proceed regardless. The filing calls that “callous and malicious disregard” for its rights.
The suit seeks a court order blocking sales of the shoe, destruction of existing stock and marketing materials, disgorgement of Nike’s profits, treble and exemplary damages, and attorneys’ fees. Nike has not responded publicly to the complaint.
