Nike Opposes Shein COUREZ Trademark, Citing Cortez Legacy

Nike, Inc. has filed a formal opposition at the U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board to block Roadget Business Pte. Ltd., the parent company of SHEIN, from registering a stylized COUREZ mark for apparel and footwear, docketed as Opposition No. 91286066. Roadget submitted an intent-to-use application in January 2025; the TTAB record also references Application Serial No. 97477402 as “filed on June 27, [...]” in the excerpts provided.

Nike’s pleading frames the dispute as a straight contest over consumer confusion and brand dilution, asserting the applied-for COUREZ mark is “virtually identical” in appearance and commercial impression to Nike’s CORTEZ mark and opposing registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d), and dilution by blurring under Trademark Act Section 43(c), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c). The TTAB excerpt reproduces Nike’s claim that the goods in Roadget’s application “may be offered in the same channels of trade to the same types of consumers for Nike’s goods,” a point Nike says heightens the risk of mistaken affiliation.

The scope of Roadget’s application is broad: the January 2025 intent-to-use filing covers shirts, dresses, hoodies, jeans, footwear, shoes, boots, and headwear. The TTAB record’s International Class 25 listing elaborates with long-sleeved shirts, short-sleeved shirts, sweaters, sweatshirts, trousers, shirts for men, women and infants, dresses, shoes, pajamas, shorts, pants, coats, belts for clothing, and headwear including hats and caps. The Board’s excerpt underscores the overlap, noting “Both Applicant’s identification of goods and Opposer’s identifications of goods in the ’307 and ’071 Registrations include t-shirts, sweatshirts, shoes/footwear, pants, headwear, and caps. We need not go beyond these identical goods to consider Applicant’s other goods.”

Nike has submitted documentary and testimonial evidence to show its marks’ reach. The opposition references Costello Decl. and Costello Decl. Exh. MC-19, which includes NIKE catalogs from 1989 to 2019, and cites testimony from Ms. Reynolds that Nike “conservatively calculates that it has sold more than 153.9 million units of products bearing JUST DO IT on the product itself in every state of the United States from 1989 to the present, totaling over $1.4 billion in net sales.”

Industry context figures into Nike’s tactical argument. The Fashion Law noted that “Although COUREZ currently appears on apparel (not sneakers) its integration into Shein’s large-scale retail model raises concerns,” highlighting the gap between current merchandise and the footwear-inclusive application that Nike challenges. The TTAB excerpts also point to legal precedent, citing Tuxedo Monopoly, Inc. v. Gen. Mills Fun Grp., and in re i.am.symbolic, llc, to support the proposition that relatedness on any one good in a class can suffice for a likelihood-of-confusion finding.

What remains open in the public record is Roadget’s response and any TTAB decision: the supplied materials document Nike’s opposition, docket identifiers, exhibits, and legal grounds but do not include a final disposition or an applicant answer. The dispute will proceed on Opposition No. 91286066, where the Board will weigh Nike’s evidence, the contested Class 25 goods, and whether COUREZ may legally register alongside Nike’s CORTEZ legacy.