FourFourtwo is a brand new weekly feature in which we take a look at some of the more interesting sporting goods that have gone up for sale on the internet in recent months.

For this week’s article, we look at Nike’s new shorts, which have been released in court this week in the US.

We know Nike have a long history with copyright infringement cases, and have already dealt with other lawsuits in the past, but this case is different.

As a brand, they’ve also recently been caught on camera, and had to admit to copying a logo that is used in the shoes themselves.

As part of their apology, Nike released a statement saying that they would be changing the design of their new shorts to avoid copyright infringement.

The statement says that they are taking this case “very seriously”, but goes on to say that there are many “legal loopholes” that the company could have taken advantage of in order to create this copy.

We asked Nike what exactly they meant by this statement, and were told that it refers to the fact that copyright is not a copyrightable concept in the United States.

It does not cover any of the “legal” elements that the US courts have considered, including trademark infringement.

As such, Nike have to show that the copyright claim was legitimate, and not a way to avoid paying the fine.

This has made it a little tricky for Nike to prove the claim that they did it in order not to pay the fine, as the company have admitted that they copied the logo from the court document.

However, Nike are also saying that there is no way for the court to prove that they have copied the trademark, because the company did not claim it.

As it stands, Nike’s statement is simply saying that copyright infringement is not an infringement, but rather a trademark claim.

This is where the similarities end, as this is a very different situation to the Nike shorts being found in court, as they were manufactured by Nike’s own factories.

Instead of being manufactured by an outsourced production company, Nike opted to produce their own shoes.

This meant that the rights to the trademark rights were owned by Nike, which meant that it could not be taken advantage.

The US courts, however, have made it clear that if a company is found to be infringing copyright, it must pay the fines to the copyright holder.

In the Nike case, it is not clear whether Nike have paid the fines.

However Nike have made a statement to that effect, stating that they will be making changes to the way they manufacture their own products, and that the court has made the right decision.

In an interview with Wired, Nike said that they believe that the Nike trademark has been a “key tool in the copyright wars”.

It was a trademark that was used to distinguish the company’s shoes from other companies’ versions of the same brand.

This was in stark contrast to Adidas, who have a monopoly on the sportswears market.

The court is now considering whether Nike has violated copyright in the first place, and if so, what steps Nike are taking to address the infringement.

Nike’s lawyer, David Boies, has argued that the case should be thrown out, and said that the trademark has a “moral significance” that is not properly explained in the court documents.

Nike has also told the court that they plan to appeal against the ruling.