New Balance sues Decathlon over the Kiprun logo. It wants the shoes recalled

New Balance filed in the District of Massachusetts in mid-September, case 1:26-cv-14235. The complaint is about one mark on the side of a running shoe. New Balance has put its N on footwear since the 1970s, and it says the Kiprun logo reads as the same letter.

Decathlon says the mark is a K. New Balance calls that “half true at best”

Decathlon sells Kiprun as its own running brand. The logo is a stylised letter that, mirrored, looks like an N. Decathlon’s position is that the letter is a K. New Balance quotes that explanation in the complaint and dismisses it in four words. The two sides first talked about the design in January 2026, and Decathlon declined to change it.

Social posts from shoppers are part of the evidence

The complaint does not rest on a designer’s opinion. It attaches social media posts in which shoppers call the Kiprun mark a New Balance shoe. That is the classic test in a trademark case: not whether two marks differ on a screen, but whether people confuse them in a shop.

New Balance asks for a recall and destruction, not a redesign

The filing seeks an injunction, a recall of shoes carrying the mark, destruction of the stock, damages set by a jury and legal costs. New Balance is privately held by Jim Davis and his family, and it tells the court it has spent hundreds of millions promoting the N.

What a letterform fight costs a brand team

Logo disputes usually turn on the same thing: whether the new mark was checked against a crowded category before it shipped. Brand owners have been busy rewriting their marks this year. Novo Nordisk dropped half its name and turned its bull. Volkswagen set an end date for Seat. And the running category itself keeps moving, with On signing Kylian Mbappé away from Nike.

The next thing to watch is narrow. Decathlon has to answer the complaint, and its answer will say whether it defends the K reading in court or quietly redraws the mark. A redraw would cost it one season of product; losing an injunction would cost it the stock.