by: Danita Ferreira, Partner
19 July 2026
Your email:
The information in these articles is general information only, is provided free of charge and does not constitute legal or other professional advice. We try to keep the information up to date. However, to the fullest extent permitted by law, we disclaim all warranties, express or implied, in relation to this article – including (without limitation) warranties as to accuracy, completeness and fitness for any particular purpose. Please seek independent advice before acting on any information in this article.
The recent dispute between 7-Eleven and Nike in the United States highlights the increasing importance of protecting a brand’s overall identity, beyond traditional trade marks such as word marks and logos.
The case is significant because it does not centre on Nike using the “7-Eleven” name or logo. Instead, 7-Eleven argues that the combination of the shoe’s colour scheme, its launch date and the surrounding marketing, was sufficient to create the impression that the shoe was connected with or endorsed by 7-Eleven.
While the case is still unfolding, its lessons are highly relevant to New Zealand businesses already.
The dispute began when Nike announced the release of its new Air Max 95 sneaker, featuring an orange, green and red colour scheme. 7-Eleven alleges that the colour combination and the overall design closely resemble its well-known branding, including its registered “Tri-Color Mark”, which it says it has used for more than 40 years.
Although the shoe does not display the words “7-Eleven”, 7-Eleven claims consumers are likely to believe there is an association, endorsement or collaboration between the two brands. 7-Eleven points to its history of official collaborations with brands such as Crocs, Sunday Golf, Breezy Golf and DGK. It argues that consumers have become accustomed to seeing genuine 7-Eleven collaborations and are therefore more likely to assume that products featuring its distinctive tri-colour branding are officially licensed or endorsed.
7-Eleven further alleges that consumers had already made this connection before the intended launch. It says the shoe was being referred to online as the “7-Eleven” shoe, with articles and listings describing it as being inspired by or paying tribute to the convenience store chain.
The planned launch date also became an issue. Nike intended to release the shoe on 11 July, the same day as 7-Eleven’s annual “7-Eleven Day” promotion. According to 7-Eleven, this timing reinforced the perceived connection between the shoe and its brand.
Before commencing proceedings, 7-Eleven said it repeatedly attempted to resolve the matter directly with Nike; however, according to the claim, Nike indicated that it intended to proceed with the release of the sneaker despite 7-Eleven’s concerns. As a result, 7-Eleven filed proceedings.
While the outcome of the 7-Eleven and Nike dispute remains to be seen, the case provides several important reminders for New Zealand businesses.
Many businesses focus only on registering their business name or logo. While these remain fundamental protections, valuable brand assets may exist elsewhere. Depending on the circumstances, businesses should also consider protecting:
Not every feature will qualify for trade mark protection. Each element must generally function as a badge of origin and distinguish one business’s goods or services from those of others. However, where a business has invested heavily in creating a recognisable identity, these assets should not be overlooked.
A consistent brand identity does more than support marketing; it can strengthen legal protection.
The more consistently a business uses a particular visual identity, the easier it may become to demonstrate that consumers associate that feature with the business. This is particularly important for non-traditional trade marks (such as colours) where distinctiveness often develops through long-term and consistent use.
Modern marketing frequently involves brand inspired products, limited editions and collaborations. These strategies can create significant commercial opportunities but also increase trade mark risk.
The 7-Eleven and Nike dispute is a reminder that even indirect references to another brand can attract scrutiny, particularly where multiple elements combine to suggest a connection that does not exist.
Before launching a new product, businesses should consider whether:
Protecting a brand does not end at registration. Actively monitoring the market for potentially infringing products or marketing is an important part of any brand protection strategy. The 7-Eleven and Nike case illustrates this well. 7-Eleven identified the issue before the product launched, giving it the opportunity to seek relief in advance of the release date.
Businesses should consider implementing watch services that alert them to new trade mark applications and marketplace activity that may conflict with their brand, and should take early legal advice when a potential issue is identified. Early action is almost always more effective and less costly than responding to an established infringement.
The 7-Eleven and Nike dispute is a timely reminder that brand protection extends well beyond registering a name or logo. The most valuable brand assets are sometimes the ones that are hardest to see, and the easiest to overlook until it is too late.
For New Zealand businesses, the key takeaway is to think broadly about what makes your brand distinctive and to protect it before a dispute forces the issue. If you need guidance navigating brand protection, our IP specialists can help you prepare a proactive strategy, whether that is securing trade mark rights, implementing a market watch programme, or reviewing a new product for potential infringement issues. We are here to ensure your brand stands out legally and commercially in a competitive environment.
Danita Ferreira, Partner – Wynn Williams Consumer Markets team
Roxana Cvasniuc, Associate – Wynn Williams Consumer Markets team
WWW.WYNNWILLIAMS.CO.NZ
