A single letter can become one of a company’s most valuable intellectual property assets. That is the lesson behind a new trademark infringement suit between athletic footwear giant New Balance and sporting goods retailer Decathlon.
In September 2026, New Balance filed a lawsuit in federal court in Massachusetts alleging that a logo used on Decathlon’s KIPRUN running shoes is confusingly similar to New Balance’s iconic “N” trademark. Decathlon maintains that its design represents a “K,” while New Balance argues that the design, particularly when mirrored, can look remarkably like its protected “N” mark.
Although the lawsuit is still at an early stage, and the allegations in the complaint will have to be tested through the litigation process, the dispute provides an important lesson for businesses: trademark infringement is not always about identical logos or words. Sometimes, the overall impression created by a mark is what matters most.
New Balance has used an “N” on its footwear for decades. According to the company’s allegations, the letter has appeared on virtually all of its footwear since the 1970s, and New Balance has invested hundreds of millions of dollars promoting its N trademarks. The company also says it has sold hundreds of millions of pairs of shoes bearing the mark worldwide.
The dispute involves Decathlon’s KIPRUN line of running shoes. New Balance alleges that certain KIPRUN footwear uses a stylized design that is not only similar to its N trademark but becomes particularly problematic when the design is reversed or mirrored.
Decathlon’s position, as described in the complaint, is that the design is a “K,” not an “N.” New Balance argues that the distinction is not enough to eliminate the possibility of consumer confusion.
New Balance claims that it contacted Decathlon before filing suit and attempted to resolve the dispute. The lawsuit was filed after those efforts did not resolve the disagreement. New Balance is seeking relief that includes an injunction, destruction of products bearing the challenged design, and monetary damages.
The central issue in many trademark disputes is not simply whether two marks are technically different. Instead, courts generally examine whether the similarity between the marks is likely to cause consumers to become confused about the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or approval of goods or services.
The Lanham Act provides a federal cause of action when use of a word, term, name, symbol, device, or combination thereof is likely to cause confusion or mistake concerning affiliation, connection, origin, sponsorship, or approval. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office similarly explains that trademarks do not have to be identical to create a likelihood of confusion. Similarity can arise from appearance, sound, meaning, or the overall commercial impression of the marks. The relationship between the parties’ goods and services is also important.
That makes the New Balance dispute especially interesting. Both companies are operating in the athletic footwear marketplace, meaning consumers encounter their products in similar commercial channels.
At first glance, arguing over whether a symbol is a “K” or an “N” might sound like a technical dispute over the alphabet. Trademark law, however, is concerned with how consumers perceive brands in the marketplace. A design that appears clearly different when examined closely could potentially create a different commercial impression when encountered quickly by an ordinary consumer.
The USPTO notes that similarity in appearance can contribute to a likelihood-of-confusion determination, and that the overall commercial impression of marks is important. That is one reason the New Balance case could be significant beyond the particular parties involved.
The New Balance lawsuit will now proceed through the federal litigation process unless the parties reach a settlement. The case could ultimately turn on questions involving the similarity of the marks, the strength of New Balance’s trademark rights, the relationship between the parties’ products and channels of trade, evidence of actual consumer confusion, and other relevant circumstances.
The important point is that filing a trademark infringement suit is not the same as winning one. At this stage, New Balance has made allegations, and Decathlon will have an opportunity to defend itself. Nevertheless, the dispute demonstrates how much legal significance can be packed into a seemingly simple logo.
The New Balance vs. Decathlon case illustrates several important trademark protection principles for businesses, entrepreneurs, and creators.
Businesses sometimes assume that changing a letter, rotating a design, changing a font, or modifying a logo slightly is enough to avoid trademark problems. That is not necessarily true. A potentially infringing mark may be visually or conceptually similar even if it is not an exact copy. The relevant question is whether the similarities, considered in context, could create confusion.
A trademark can become significantly more valuable as consumers begin associating a particular symbol with one source. New Balance’s allegations emphasize the company’s decades-long use of its N mark and the extensive investment it has made in promoting the brand. For businesses, this demonstrates why trademark protection should be considered an ongoing business strategy rather than a one-time registration exercise.
Before adopting a new logo, product name, slogan, or other branding element, a business should conduct an appropriate trademark search. A professional clearance review can identify potentially conflicting marks before substantial money is spent on product manufacturing, packaging, website development, advertising, signage, social media campaigns, and retail distribution. The cost of changing a logo before launch can be significant. The cost of changing it after litigation begins can be substantially greater.
The New Balance dispute also highlights what can happen before a lawsuit is filed. A trademark owner may send a cease-and-desist letter identifying the allegedly infringing conduct and requesting that the other party stop using the disputed mark. Depending on the circumstances, negotiations can resolve a dispute without litigation.
But a letter does not automatically establish infringement. Businesses receiving one should have the allegations reviewed carefully rather than immediately assuming that they must comply or that the opposing party has no legal rights.
The New Balance versus Decathlon dispute is a useful reminder that trademark law is ultimately about brand identity and consumer perception. A single letter, or a logo that can be perceived as a different letter, can become the center of a major trademark infringement suit when the businesses operate in the same marketplace.
Florida businesses face the same fundamental trademark concerns when developing and protecting their brands. Whether you are developing a new brand, evaluating a potentially conflicting logo, enforcing an existing trademark, or defending against an infringement claim, experienced legal guidance can help you understand your rights and reduce unnecessary risk.
At the Lomnitzer Law Firm, we help creators, innovators, entrepreneurs, and businesses navigate today’s rapidly changing intellectual property landscape. Our experienced attorneys provide practical legal guidance on trademarks, infringement disputes, copyright protection, licensing, and emerging AI-related legal issues so you can innovate with greater confidence. Call us at 1-800-853-9692 or contact us online today.
