US Court’s Partial Relief To Nike Against Social Media Influencer Eben Fox Selling Counterfeit Goods

US Court’s Partial Relief To Nike Against Social Media Influencer Eben Fox Selling Counterfeit Goods

The case demonstrates the prestigious shoemaker’s determination to tackle online forging

The US District Court in Florida has granted partial relief to Nike in a legal battle with social media influencer Eben Fox, observing that he infringed the sportswear giant’s trademarks through selling counterfeit goods.

Fox, who posts under Cedaz, has over a million online followers.

Nike filed a lawsuit against the sneaker influencer in December 2023, accusing him of creating fashion-related content that included counterfeits. The company referred to the content as ‘reps’, ‘replicas’, or ‘fakes’, claiming that the means was his only source of income.

District Judge Virginia Hernandez Covington held it was ‘undisputed’ that Fox sold counterfeit Nike goods, including shoes, on the social media platform Discord. This was done via the popular mobile phone payment app CashApp.

The judge agreed with Nike’s contention regarding confusion among consumers over whether the items were authentic. She held that the company was entitled to a permanent injunction against Fox.

However, the judge denied summary judgment and proceeding to trial on infringement and counterfeit claims on Fox’s online promotional activities. These included shipping agent affiliations (including PandaBuy), websites, videos, spreadsheets and promotion of counterfeit sellers.

The court conducted a likelihood of confusion analysis involving seven factors that included the allegedly infringed mark and its similarity. It favored Nike on six factors.

Nike showed actual confusion relating to Fox’s YouTube channel, where the public believed his fake shoes were authentic Nikes.

The judge ruled that without evidence of actual confusion, a reasonable jury could still find no likelihood of confusion with online activities such as his shipping agent affiliations, websites and videos. She denied Nike the summary judgment that Fox was liable for direct infringement on the part of the shipping agents.

Judge Covington stated, “A genuine dispute of material fact exists as to whether PandaBuy and the shipping agents are direct infringers for the purpose of finding Fox contributorily liable.”

However, she added that Fox did not respond to Nike’s argument in this regard and instead focused solely on the shipping agents.

The court ruled that it was ‘undisputed’ that Fox provided the sellers with dedicated channels and occasional introductions on the Discord server and referenced another seller on his website, cedaz.net, that facilitated the sellers’ direct infringements.

While Nike is being represented by DLA Piper, Eben Fox is being guided by Four Rivers Law Firm.