Nike Scores Partial Trademark Win Against Influencer Over Fakes

Nike Inc. convinced a Florida federal judge that a social media influencer infringed its trademarks by selling counterfeit sneakers.

Eben Fox, who uses the handle Cedaz on social media, failed to provide evidence contradicting Nike’s documentation that he sold counterfeit products on Discord and facilitated other sellers’ infringement, according to a Monday order granting Nike partial summary judgment. Nike’s remaining trademark claims, including those over videos and websites Fox made, will head to trial in the US District Court for the Middle District of Florida, the court said.

Fox has over one million social media followers and describes himself as a “replica content creator,” according to the order. His YouTube video titles include “I Returned FAKE Nike Shoes to Nike .. . (SHOCKING)” and “I Wore FAKE Nike Mags To SNEAKERCON . . . (SHOCKING).”

Nike sued Fox in 2023, alleging he’s the “ringleader of an organized counterfeit trafficking community based on Discord.” Some of Nike’s trademark claims were based on websites Fox co-owns, his YouTube and TikTok videos, and a spreadsheet he compiled of alleged counterfeiters.

Nike also alleged Fox’s partnerships with shipping agents PandaBuy, MuleBuy, and AllChinaBuy amounted to contributory trademark counterfeiting and infringement because they’re known counterfeiters.

The shoe manufacturer moved for summary judgment in December. Fox opposed, arguing Nike failed to establish a likelihood of confusion of the goods he sold and Nike products.

Evidence of Fox’s CashApp transactions and the inauthenticity of the Nike goods identified in the transaction descriptions warrant summary judgment in Nike’s favor on trademark infringement and trademark counterfeiting, Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington wrote. The court denied summary judgment on the infringement and counterfeiting claims related to Fox’s affiliation with e-commerce shipping agencies, websites, videos, and spreadsheets, because Nike’s only evidence of actual confusion, Fox’s YouTube videos, are disputed.

Covington also denied summary judgment of the contributory claims related to the shipping agents, saying there’s a genuine dispute of material fact whether the agents are direct infringers.

The court granted Nike’s request for a permanent injunction against Fox at the end of the case, but declined to rule on whether Fox willfully infringed and Nike’s related request for $18 million in damages.

DLA Piper US represents Nike. Four Rivers Law Firm represents Fox.

The case is Nike Inc. v. Fox, M.D. Fla., No. 23-cv-02873, 4/21/25.

To contact the reporter on this story: Annelise Levy in San Francisco at agilbert1@bloombergindustry.com

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Kartikay Mehrotra at kmehrotra@bloombergindustry.com

© 2025 Bloomberg L.P. All rights reserved. Used with permission.