Nike has secured an $11 million judgment against fashion influencer Nicholas C. Turganberg following a jury verdict in the Central District Court of California. The case, filed on December 14, 2023, went the full distance to trial, with the jury returning its verdict on March 19.
The jury found Turganberg and his company, Divide the Youth Manufacturing, liable for trademark counterfeiting, infringement, and unfair competition. For willful trademark counterfeiting, the jury awarded Nike $8 million. An additional $1 million was awarded in punitive damages against Turganberg personally for his willful infringement of Nike’s trademark and unfair competition.
Divide the Youth Manufacturing was separately assessed $1 million, with the jury also confirming that the company had willfully infringed Nike’s Dunk trade dress, resulting in a further $1 million in punitive damages.
According to the breakdown of the judgment, the large majority of the debt falls on Turganberg as an individual rather than his company, meaning that even LLC protections offer him limited shelter from the financial consequences.
Turganberg had already drawn Nike’s attention prior to the lawsuit for linking to a Chinese manufacturer selling counterfeit sneakers. He operated a Discord channel where replica sneakers were actively promoted and sold.
He also used his social media platforms to advertise PandaBuy, a Chinese website known for replica footwear, complete with his personal affiliate code, meaning he collected a cut each time a follower made a purchase.
Beyond promoting replicas, Turganberg took things further by launching his own clothing brand with designs closely mirroring Nike’s, including a sneaker that drew heavily from the Nike Dunk silhouette. Comments on his posts revealed genuine confusion among consumers, with many followers assuming the product was an official Nike collaboration. That consumer confusion over the trademark played a central role in the jury’s findings.
Nike is widely regarded as one of the most aggressive enforcers of intellectual property rights in the industry. The brand has built a dedicated legal operation focused on pursuing trademark violations, and this case appears to serve as a deliberate example to others in the influencer space who may consider similar activities.
Having a large following does not provide protection from legal consequences, and aligning yourself with counterfeit goods, whether by promoting them or directly copying protected designs, puts you in the crosshairs of brands that have the legal resources and institutional experience to pursue cases all the way through trial.
