Nike, Converse, and Love, Kelly Settle Trademark Battle Over 'Love' and 'Dear' Apparel Campaigns

In a trademark dispute that highlighted the intersection of sports marketing, social media, and intellectual property law, Nike, Converse, and Love, Kelly Holdings LLC have reached a settlement agreement, ending litigation over the use of "LOVE, ___" and "DEAR ___" branding in apparel campaigns. The case, filed in the Southern District of New York, was dismissed with prejudice on May 20, 2026, following months of contentious claims and counterclaims.

The dispute began in early 2025 when Nike launched its "Love, Hurts" campaign, a slogan cleverly referencing Super Bowl-winning quarterback Jalen Hurts, the city of Philadelphia's "Brotherly Love" identity, and the athlete's resilience narrative. This campaign was accompanied by a line of sports apparel that quickly gained traction.

Concurrently, Converse introduced its "Dear Chuck" and "Love, Chuck" campaigns for its Converse All Star shoe line, employing a love letter motif centered on the shoe's namesake, Chuck Taylor. These campaigns were visually and conceptually similar to Love, Kelly's longstanding use of "LOVE, KELLY" and "DEAR LOVE" branding in its clothing and multimedia projects.

Love, Kelly, a small fashion and multimedia company, publicly accused Nike and Converse of copying its branding concepts through social media posts and videos. The company claimed it had developed common law trademark rights in the "LOVE, KELLY" and "DEAR LOVE" marks through years of use and had acquired considerable goodwill and distinctiveness. Notably, Love, Kelly had collaborated with Converse in 2024 for a fashion show and alleged that Converse, along with Nike (which owns Converse), used ideas shared during that collaboration to develop their respective campaigns.

Following these accusations, Love, Kelly's attorneys sent demand letters seeking compensation and royalties. Rather than waiting for a lawsuit, Nike and Converse filed a declaratory judgment action on November 14, 2025, in the Southern District of New York. They sought a declaration that their campaigns did not infringe on any trademark rights and contended that Love, Kelly lacked enforceable common law trademark rights in the disputed marks.

Nike and Converse argued that their campaigns were independently created, with no Converse employees involved in Nike's "Love, Hurts" campaign. They further asserted that the phrases "DEAR ___" and "LOVE ___" were commonplace and not inherently distinctive, and that framing marketing messages as letters was a common industry practice rather than protectable intellectual property. Additionally, they pointed to the absence of any actual consumer confusion since the campaigns' launch.

Love, Kelly responded with counterclaims alleging common law trademark infringement, unfair competition under the Lanham Act, and false advertising and deceptive business practices under New York law. The company maintained that Converse had access to its branding concepts during their 2024 collaboration and that both Converse and Nike had appropriated these concepts in commerce, causing consumer confusion and unfairly benefiting from Love, Kelly's goodwill.

Unlike many trademark disputes involving federally registered marks, Love, Kelly's federal trademark applications for "LOVE, KELLY" and "DEAR LOVE" were pending during the litigation. The "LOVE, KELLY" mark was officially registered on May 19, 2026, just one day before the settlement, while the "DEAR LOVE" application remained pending. Consequently, the case largely revolved around whether Love, Kelly had established sufficient common law rights through use in commerce.

Shortly before the settlement, on May 15, 2026, Nike and Converse moved to dismiss portions of Love, Kelly's counterclaims, challenging the viability of state law claims for deceptive business practices and false advertising. However, the parties resolved all claims before these motions were fully briefed or argued.

This dispute underscores the evolving landscape of intellectual property in sports branding, where athlete- and celebrity-centered marketing campaigns are valuable assets extending beyond traditional advertising. Nike's integration of Jalen Hurts' personal story and Philadelphia's identity into a cohesive marketing narrative exemplifies this trend.

Moreover, the case highlights the growing influence of social media in IP disputes. Love, Kelly leveraged social platforms to publicly challenge the major brands, framing the conflict as a David versus Goliath battle and seeking to sway public opinion prior to litigation.

With the settlement concluding the case before any substantive rulings, many of the underlying legal issues concerning common law trademark rights in commonplace phrases and marketing concepts remain unresolved. Nevertheless, the matter illustrates the complexities brands face when navigating intellectual property rights in a fast-moving, socially connected marketplace.