Nike scheduled a sneaker drop for 7/11 in 7-Eleven's own colours — and got sued for it

In July 2026, Nike scheduled the release of an Air Max 95 'Big Bubble' colourway in orange, green and red stripes for 11 July — 7-Eleven's own promotional holiday, marked every year by free Slurpees. The shoe's insole carried a convenience-store shelf pattern and its marketing referenced a 'corner store' theme.

7-Eleven filed suit against Nike in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, arguing the shoe was a 'confusingly similar imitation' of its Tri-Color Mark — the orange-green-red combination it has used since at least 1987 (and traces to well before). The complaint pointed to the release date itself as evidence of intent: choosing 7/11 for a shoe in those exact three colours was not a coincidence 7-Eleven was willing to read as one.

7-Eleven's complaint noted that online listings and social posts were already calling the shoe 'the 7-Eleven sneaker' before the lawsuit — a sign, it argued, that consumer confusion was not hypothetical but observed. It sought a permanent injunction, a recall and destruction of unsold pairs, disgorgement of Nike's profits, and treble damages.

7-Eleven sued, citing the release date as intent evidence and observed consumer confusion from resale listings, seeking recall, profit disgorgement, and treble damages.

Nike picked a colourway and a calendar date that together evoked another company's six-decade-old brand identity, on a product built around a convenience-store aesthetic.

A distinctive, long-used colour trademark like 7-Eleven's tri-color mark is protected even outside its original category — sneakers are not convenience stores, but the mark can still be diluted.

The release date compounded rather than diluted the color argument: 7/11 is 7-Eleven's own marketing day, which let the plaintiff frame the whole launch as deliberate rather than a design coincidence.

Resale listings and social commentary calling the shoe 'the 7-Eleven sneaker' gave 7-Eleven real-world evidence of confusion to attach to the filing, rather than a purely theoretical harm.

A colourway and a release date carry legal weight once they land this close to somebody's decades-old brand identity — 'it looked cool' is not a defence once a court asks if shoppers were confused.