7-Eleven sues Nike over alleged trademark copying on an Air Max 95 color scheme

7-Eleven has filed a federal trademark infringement lawsuit against Nike, accusing the sportswear company of copying a color pattern the convenience-store chain says it has used for decades across store-branded products and promotions. The complaint, reported by Retail Insight Network and also covered by major financial media, centers on an upcoming Nike Air Max 95 sneaker that 7-Eleven alleges incorporates its trademarked “Tri-Color Mark.”

According to the lawsuit description, the dispute focuses on Nike’s “Air Max 95 Big Bubble” trainer offered in a “sport green and safety orange” colorway. 7-Eleven alleges the design features a stripe combination that closely resembles its own orange, green and red pattern and that the similarities go beyond aesthetics, aiming to associate Nike’s footwear with the retailer.

The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, and 7-Eleven is seeking a jury trial, the reports say. 7-Eleven also told the court it has used the stripe combination commercially since at least 1987 and maintains multiple federal trademark registrations covering the pattern.

Timing is a key part of the retailer’s argument. The sneaker’s scheduled release date is reported as 11 July, which 7-Eleven says is widely recognized as “7-Eleven Day” or “Free Slurpee Day.” 7-Eleven claims the proximity between the product launch and its own annual event increases the likelihood that customers will view the sneaker as linked to the store chain.

The complaint also points to early availability and potential consumer confusion. Retail Insight Network’s reporting says the shoe was already being offered for presale, including to customers in Texas, and that 7-Eleven cited an example where a consumer purchased the shoe through a third-party website before its official launch. The retailer alleges some product listings refer to the trainer as a “7-Eleven” shoe, and it argues that this has already caused or could cause confusion in the marketplace.

7-Eleven further alleges that Nike’s use of the color combination reflects what the chain describes as a deliberate and willful effort to associate Nike’s footwear with the retailer. The lawsuit description also says 7-Eleven highlighted unsolicited media coverage that portrayed the Tri-Color Mark as “instantly recognizable,” “unmistakable,” “signature” and “iconic,” alongside headlines that linked the footwear directly with 7-Eleven.

Nike, as the defendant, has not been quoted in the reported summaries of the filing. The reports available here describe what 7-Eleven alleges but do not include a legal response from Nike, such as a motion, a statement of defenses, or arguments about design independence or trademark scope.

Industry context matters because footwear brands routinely draw on recognizable visual motifs, and trademark disputes in consumer goods often hinge on whether packaging-like design elements function as source identifiers. If the court views the alleged stripe pattern as a protected indicator of 7-Eleven’s brand rather than a broad style choice, 7-Eleven could argue it has a stronger case for injunctive relief that affects sales timing and marketing plans around a high-visibility date.