Lil Nas X offered 666 pairs of Nike Air Max 97s dubbed “Satan shoes” with the Brooklyn-based art collective MSCHF. These "Satan shoes" include a drop of blood from the members of the collective’s design staff, are engraved with a bronze pentagram and reference a Biblical passage about Satan falling from Heaven.
Nike was granted a temporary restraining order from the U.S. District Court in New York to halt distribution but attorney's for MSCHF reportedly said 665 pairs of the shoes were already shipped since the shoes sold out within minutes online. Nike sued for trademark infringement, false designation of origin, trademark dilution and common law trademark infringement and unfair competition.
Partner Douglas Hand gives some thoughts on the situation in the below excerpt.
The controversy is made even more interesting because MSCHF had created Jesus shoes two years ago, which also used Nike Air Max 97 sneakers but with the addition of holy water from the Jordan River. Nike did not sue over those shoes.
“Why would Nike sue on this rather than various other artists who took their shoes as inspiration?” asked Douglas Hand, a partner with the law firm of Hand Baldachin & Associates LLP. “What it tells you is a lot more people worship God than worship Satan, and Satan is still bad for business. For many consumers, the symbolism is anti-God and anti-goodness and Nike can’t be associated with it.”
.....
In addition, in the case of MSCHF, the association with Satan crossed a line, prompting Nike to file the lawsuit, according to Hand. In addition to trademark infringement, the sporting goods giant sued for trade dilution by tarnishment, a legal term that says the reputation of a famous mark is harmed through association with another similar mark or trade name. It “brings the brand into disrepute by associating with something negative,” the lawyer explained. “The Prince of Darkness meets that standard.”
And it can lead to confusion among consumers who might believe Nike was complicit in the creation of the Satan shoes. “Nike’s track record is mostly, ‘Let’s work together,’ but this one just crosses the line,” Hand said. “It is potentially detrimental to business in the minds of consumers.”
You can read the rest of this WWD article here: Repurposing Brands Is Complicated for Designers, Artists and Brands
Lil Nas X offered 666 pairs of Nike Air Max 97s dubbed “Satan shoes” with the Brooklyn-based art collective MSCHF. These "Satan shoes" include a drop of blood from the members of the collective’s design staff, are engraved with a bronze pentagram and reference a Biblical passage about Satan falling from Heaven.
Nike was granted a temporary restraining order from the U.S. District Court in New York to halt distribution but attorney's for MSCHF reportedly said 665 pairs of the shoes were already shipped since the shoes sold out within minutes online. Nike sued for trademark infringement, false designation of origin, trademark dilution and common law trademark infringement and unfair competition.
Partner Douglas Hand gives some thoughts on the situation in the below excerpt.
The controversy is made even more interesting because MSCHF had created Jesus shoes two years ago, which also used Nike Air Max 97 sneakers but with the addition of holy water from the Jordan River. Nike did not sue over those shoes.
“Why would Nike sue on this rather than various other artists who took their shoes as inspiration?” asked Douglas Hand, a partner with the law firm of Hand Baldachin & Associates LLP. “What it tells you is a lot more people worship God than worship Satan, and Satan is still bad for business. For many consumers, the symbolism is anti-God and anti-goodness and Nike can’t be associated with it.”
.....
In addition, in the case of MSCHF, the association with Satan crossed a line, prompting Nike to file the lawsuit, according to Hand. In addition to trademark infringement, the sporting goods giant sued for trade dilution by tarnishment, a legal term that says the reputation of a famous mark is harmed through association with another similar mark or trade name. It “brings the brand into disrepute by associating with something negative,” the lawyer explained. “The Prince of Darkness meets that standard.”
And it can lead to confusion among consumers who might believe Nike was complicit in the creation of the Satan shoes. “Nike’s track record is mostly, ‘Let’s work together,’ but this one just crosses the line,” Hand said. “It is potentially detrimental to business in the minds of consumers.”
You can read the rest of this WWD article here: Repurposing Brands Is Complicated for Designers, Artists and Brands
.png)
.png)
