Does Nike actually have a case against the "Satan Shoe" company?

[DanTex]

Aren't you allowed to buy stuff and then paint or modify it and then sell it again? Any legal scholars here have an opinion?

[torius]

1. there was another case like this

I forget the name, the big co. sued the desigber who modified and the big co won but years later teamed up with the modifier. it’s not legal to modify and resell brands.

[FalloutShelter]

2. I'm an artist...

If you use a protected logo in or on your work, you need a lawyer to confirm consent and attribution.
If that did not happen, Nike has a case.

[LisaM]

3. Nike has a good case.

Last edited Thu Apr 1, 2021, 07:52 AM - Edit history (1)

Among.othwr things, they mass produced the infringing shoes. I can't believe Lil Nas doesn't have better attorneys, unless he's relying on public ill will against Nike to do this. Heck, I boycott Nike and I don't think this is right.

https://amp-cnn-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/03/29/business/satan-shoes-nike-lil-nas-x/index.html?amp_js_v=a6&_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQHKAFQArABIA%3D%3D#aoh=16171287906318&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2021%2F03%2F29%2Fbusiness%2Fsatan-shoes-nike-lil-nas-x%2Findex.html

[soothsayer]

4. Seems like a successful PR stunt. Shoes probably don't matter to him

[msongs]

5. yes a lot of PR hot air about something with minimal value nt

[Celerity]

6. MSCHF can defend itself on multiple grounds. It can cite the First Sale Doctrine, which protects

reselling goods that are protected by intellectual property laws — like people selling designer clothes on Poshmark, for instance. It can also claim the shoes are protected as a parody or argue that buyers are unlikely to confuse these modified Satan Shoes with off-the-shelf Nikes, random internet commenters notwithstanding.

Very, very few people will ever own a $1,000 blood-and-pentagram sneaker. If the case goes to trial, though, there’s more than a limited-edition satanic shoe line at stake. “The case has potentially broad implications because we’re seeing a rise in this kind of customization of branded goods as well as upcycling,” Roberts told The Verge via email.

It’s fine to directly resell products, Roberts says, and it’s legal to advertise goods while mentioning somebody else’s trademark. You can also do things like dismember Barbie dolls and sell pictures of them as art. “But what about the businesses making jewelry out of authentic Chanel buttons, or cutting fringes into genuine Vuitton bags?” Earlier this year, in fact, Chanel sued a company for “misappropriating” its brand for recycled button earrings.

Basically, MSCHF bought shoes that it could legally resell using Nike’s branding, but it heavily modified them into what’s arguably a new product whose quality Nike can’t control, then sold them as a commercial good rather than a traditional art piece. Depending on how a court weighs all those factors, it could create a precedent for future cases. “I think other high fashion brands will be keeping a close eye on this case,” Roberts says.

https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/29/22357225/nike-sues-lil-nas-x-unauthorized-satan-shoes-mschf

[LisaM]

7. Super interesting, thank you.

I work in trademarks, this is really interesting to me.