Shoe artists Boris Zuborev and Eugene Finkelberg, with Mark Kratter, sue Nike, Converse, Timberland, and Nordstrom over six 1992 footwear works they say the Copyright Office refused to register

What was filed

The complaint is Document 1 in No. 3:26-cv-01804-KAD, U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, filed October 16, 2026 (30 pages, including verifications and an exhibit list). The plaintiffs are Mark M. Kratter, an individual and attorney the complaint places in Norwalk, Connecticut, and Boris Zuborev and Eugene Finkelberg, individuals in Brooklyn, New York, who the complaint says co-created the works. The defendants are Nike, Inc., an Oregon corporation in Beaverton, Oregon; Converse, Inc., a Delaware corporation in Boston, Massachusetts, which the complaint describes as a wholly owned subsidiary of Nike; TBL Licensing LLC d/b/a Timberland, a Delaware limited liability company in Stratham, New Hampshire; and Nordstrom, Inc., a Washington corporation in Seattle, Washington. The docket lists Kratter as counsel for Zuborev, and lists Kratter and Finkelberg each as representing himself. The plaintiffs demand a jury trial. Jurisdiction is pleaded under 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1338(a), and 1367, and venue under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) and 1400(a). (Compl. paras. 7 to 18; pp. 25 to 26.)

Three exhibits are listed: Exhibit A, which the complaint describes as the Second Request for Reconsideration package (including the refusal letter, the application, photographs of the six works, and the reconsideration brief); Exhibit B, which the complaint describes as the 2025 written assignment to Kratter; and Exhibit C, the 17 U.S.C. 411(a) notice letter to the Register of Copyrights. None of the exhibits is publicly available. (Compl. pp. 27 to 30.)

The refusal and the 411(a) route

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs applied to register the six works (Copyright Office Case No. 1-14900102793), the Office refused registration on September 16, 2025 "on the ground that the works are useful articles lacking separable copyrightable features," and the plaintiffs filed a Second Request for Reconsideration on October 27, 2025. Citing 17 U.S.C. 411(a), it says the plaintiffs "are authorized to bring this civil action notwithstanding the refusal, and this Court must determine copyrightability de novo." A section titled Notice to the Register of Copyrights gives notice of the suit under 411(a) and says the plaintiffs will serve the complaint on the Register. (Compl. paras. 5, 10; p. 25.)

The complaint alleges that each work embodies expressive, nonfunctional sculptural elements that are conceptually separable from the utilitarian aspects of footwear and protectable under 17 U.S.C. 102(a)(5). For Work 1, it says the elements, imagined separately from the shoe, would qualify as protectable sculptural works "under the separability analysis articulated in Star Athletica," a reference to Star Athletica, L.L.C. v. Varsity Brands, Inc., 580 U.S. 405 (2017). On ownership, it alleges that in 2025 Zuborev and Finkelberg assigned Kratter an undivided one-third interest in the copyright in each work by a written instrument it says complies with 17 U.S.C. 204(a), and that each plaintiff now holds an undivided one-third interest. (Compl. paras. 4, 12 to 14, 30, 52.)

The six works and the accused products

The complaint alleges that Zuborev and Finkelberg made the six works by hand in 1992 at a shoe repair shop they co-founded in Manhattan, later working from a studio in Brooklyn, and that the works became widely known through celebrity clients, media coverage, a film and a music video, and social media posts beginning in 2019. It alleges that a 2018 Converse collaboration with a fashion label publicly credited Zuborev and the shop as the creative source for the designs, and that a designer visited Zuborev's studio before a 2024 designer collaboration with Converse, giving direct access to Work 5. For Works 3 and 6, it alleges the similarity is so striking that independent creation is implausible. It pleads willful infringement and alleges, on information and belief, that the defendants acted in concert and profited from one another's infringing activities. (Compl. paras. 19 to 27, 53 to 58.)

The six works, and the products the complaint accuses of copying each, are as follows (Compl. paras. 28 to 51).

• Work 1, Moccasin Sneaker Hybrid (a handcrafted faux-moccasin overlay with a hand-stitched U-shaped vamp panel on a Converse Chuck Taylor base): Converse's All Star Moc and later moccasin-overlay Chuck Taylor models, attributed to Converse and Nike.
• Work 2, 70's Lux Sole Sneaker (layered foxing and an elevated platform sole): the Converse Chuck 70 De Luxe Heel and De Luxe Wedge, and a designer collaboration De Luxe Wedge with Converse, attributed to Converse and Nike.
• Work 3, a sneaker with a central zipper closure and sealed faux eyelets: Nike's Zoom Haven and several Converse zipper models.
• Work 4, Faux Fur Sneaker (faux fur across the collar, tongue, and upper): a faux-fur Chuck Taylor model by Converse.
• Work 5, a knee- or thigh-high sneaker-boot with faux laces and a side zipper: the Converse Chuck Taylor XX Hi and a designer collaboration All Star 70 XXHi with Converse, attributed to Converse and Nike.
• Work 6, High-Heel Feminized Work Boot (a high-heel version of the Timberland 6-inch work boot): high-heel work-boot variants by Timberland "and other brands."

Counts and relief

Counts I and II allege willful copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. 501 by Nike and by Converse, as to elements including those described in Works 1 to 5. Count III alleges willful infringement by Timberland as to Work 6. Count IV alleges copyright infringement against Nordstrom in a count labeled "limited to sales/distribution," and alleges that Nordstrom sold the other defendants' accused products in Connecticut; the complaint says that, "consistent with Plaintiffs' prior instruction," Nordstrom is named primarily for jurisdictional and venue purposes and for its role as a retailer. Count V seeks a declaratory judgment under 28 U.S.C. 2201 that the sculptural elements of Works 1 to 6 are copyrightable and that the plaintiffs own the copyrights. Count VI alleges violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. 42-110a et seq.; Count VII alleges common law unfair competition (misappropriation and passing off); and Count VIII alleges unjust enrichment. (Compl. paras. 59 to 98.)

The prayer asks for declarations that the plaintiffs own valid copyrights in Works 1 to 6, that the sculptural elements are copyrightable under 17 U.S.C. 102(a)(5), and that the defendants infringed; the defendants' profits, actual damages, and other monetary relief under the Copyright Act or, at the plaintiffs' election, statutory damages for willful infringement under 17 U.S.C. 504(c); punitive, treble, or other enhanced damages to the extent permitted by law; a permanent injunction against manufacturing, importing, marketing, distributing, offering for sale, or selling infringing footwear; impoundment and destruction of infringing articles and the materials used to produce them; disgorgement and restitution for unjust enrichment; compensatory damages under CUTPA and common law; attorneys' fees, costs, and litigation expenses, including expert fees; and pre- and post-judgment interest. (Compl. p. 24.)

On October 19, 2026, the court entered intake orders, including an order on pretrial deadlines and a standing protective order, and the docket shows an electronic summons issued and a report on the copyright form. Two summonses were returned executed on October 21, 2026.