Ban on Nike Satanshoe

This spring, rapper Lil Nas X not only launched his new video, but also 666 pairs of “Satan shoes” ($1,018), a joint project with artist collective MSCHF. Original Nike Air Max shoes were slightly modified for this. A pentagram was added to the laces, as well as a reference to Luke 10:18 (the fall of the devil) and a drop of human blood combined with ink on the sole. After the announcement on Twitter, the numbered pairs sold out in the blink of an eye. Not to the liking of Nike, but could they do something?

 

An original product may be sold on. A trademark owner cannot prevent this, as result of the exhaustion rule. The only exception being when the original product is altered, causing its condition to deteriorate. Additionally, there should be no suggestion of a commercial connection with the original seller.

This was the card Nike pulled as they had not been involved in the process and the modifications to the sole could even be dangerous to the user. Within several days it was announced that the case had been settled. All buyers could return the shoes to MSCHF and get a refund, Nike pleaded clean and Lil Nas X had had his fair share of media exposure. (Source image: Twitter)

trademarks



Latest news
The Bulldog rightly claims damages from Red Bull
Trademark Escobar parfum contrary to public order
Abcor team in World Trademark Review 1000
Louis Keijzer passes BBMM exam with flying colours
Competitor registers domain name
Our Clients
Follow Abcor
claimant
defendant
claimant
defendant

IP quiz Trademarks

Puma is one of the bigger sports and lifestyle brands in the world. The core-business is the design, development and sale of (sports) shoes, (sports) clothing and accessories. In 1960, Puma registered an international trademark for a device designed in 1958: the formstrip. Since then, Puma has registered approximately 90 formstrip trademarks with validity in the Benelux or the European Union. Puma claims that this is a serial mark. Monshoe is a wholesaler of women's shoes and related products. The company designs and develops Monshoe shoes which it largely markets itself. Monshoe sells its women's shoes under the brands Shoecolate and Pearlz. The shoe Shoecolate is offered in various colour combinations. Puma claims that Monshoe infringes its well-known formstrip trademark. Monshoe contradicts this and states that the average consumer will not perceive the device of Monshoe on the sneakers as a trademark. And if the public will recognize a trademark in the decoration, it will not make the connection to Puma. According to Monshoe, the formstrip logo is not a well-known trademark within the meaning of the BVIE and the UMVo. There is no likelihood of confusion because the sign does not or hardly evoke any association with Puma among the public. In light of the above, who is right? Does this constitute decorative use or linking to a well-known trademark?