Judge Allows Most Expert Opinions to Proceed in Nike-StockX NFT Trademark Case
On Wednesday, July 10, 2024, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an opinion and order overruling various objections to expert testimony in a lawsuit between Nike, Inc. and online sneaker resale platform StockX, LLC.
Judge Valerie Caproni oversaw the case brought forth by Nike, where the apparel giant accused StockX of selling counterfeit Nike sneakers and using Nike’s trademarks without permission on StockX’s non-fungible tokens, or NFTs. Both parties filed motions to exclude testimony from eight experts proposed to weigh in on issues of liability and potential damages.
Regarding StockX’s experts, the court denied Nike’s motion to exclude testimony from Sarah Butler, an expert who conducted a consumer survey examining the impact of StockX’s authentication guarantees on purchasing decisions. While Nike argued Butler’s methodology was flawed, Judge Caproni ruled the critiques went to the weight rather than the admissibility of the evidence.
The court partially granted Nike’s motion against StockX expert Robert Vigil, an economist who analyzed StockX sales data. Vigil could not affirmatively opine that factors other than authentication drove sales without reliable methodology, but was able to critique opinions from Nike’s expert John Hansen on this issue.
Testimony from sneaker enthusiast DeJongh Wells on sneakerhead culture and how the community views authentication was also permitted to provide relevant background on consumer sophistication. However, Judge Caproni limited discussion from anti-counterfeiting expert Kari Kammel, requiring her opinions to connect more directly to the issues in the case.
Regarding Nike’s experts, the court denied StockX’s motion to exclude John Hansen, who analyzed the impact of authentication statements. It also denied excluding Jeffrey Stec, an expert on trademark law. However, the judge granted StockX’s motion in part against damages expert Steven McNew, requiring more foundation for some conclusions.
Overall, the opinion aimed to allow both relevant and reliable expert testimony to proceed to trial while weeding out issues of undue speculation or prejudice. The court found many flaws raised by the parties went to weight rather than blocking testimony altogether. This will help the upcoming trial focus on factual disputes central to the allegations.
Please contact BlockTribune for access to a copy of this filing.
