re: Breaking: Judge has ordered MSCHF to stop selling Lil Nas X’s “Satan Shoes”; Nike wins!

quote:

---

people freaking out revived his career

---

Exactly like Kathy Griffin, right?

quote:

---

How is this different compared to someone buying some cars, modifying them and then reselling them? Does this judgement mean they have to get permission from manufacturers if they leave the badges on?

---

a lawyer can help out here buts its something like could you reasonably tell the difference.

I think the poster above said it, People think nike sanctioned this, they didnt. And most likely because shoe companies make deals with celebs and athletes and market them.

People know after market parts and body kits arent things from the actual car manufacturer. And you probably could get in trouble if you fixed up a vehicle and tried to sell it as a special edition release of said vehicle. if not, then possibly fraud to extract more value from a dumbass.

quote:

---

His little marketing ploy won’t make up for the damages Nike will claim.

---

Probably not, just trying to explain the diff in this and a used car.

But i stumbled on something else and companies have tried to have protection of reselling used or refurbished products with the trademark intact.

quote:

---

The trademark owner, the party selling the reconditioned product, and the used product customer have different views and interests. The trademark owner ordinarily is interested in maintaining an absolute right to control its trademark and the quality of products sold under it. Often, however, this interest is based upon a desire to preclude resale of products so that new products must be purchased, thus preventing the prospective used product customer from acquiring the product at a reduced cost. The party selling reconditioned items is obviously interested in the business it has developed, which in many cases, involves millions of dollars. The product purchaser wants to buy a used article at a reduced price, believing that the product has certain qualities represented by the trademark imprinted on it.

These diverging interests have resulted in periodic litigation involving a wide range of products. Most recently, the issue arose in Nitro Leisure Products, LLC v. Acushnet Company, decided August 26, 2003, by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ("CAFC"). In this case, Acushnet sought a preliminary injunction to enjoin Nitro's sale of reconditioned Acushnet golf balls bearing the Acushnet trademark TITLEIST. Acushnet's request was denied because it failed to show the unauthorized use was likely to deceive, cause confusion or result in mistake.

---

And Nitro had a disclaimer that the balls are used and not endorsed by the original manufacturer. So a reasonable person would know these balls arent up to standards of the manufacturer.

quote:

---

100% of their shoes made in China

---

I'm not sure nike makes anything in China anymore. Most everything is in India, Thailand, Indonesia, Taiwan, etc.

quote:

---

This just being an temporary, while the case plays out, means it doesn’t effect anything buuuuuut the implications associated with a future ruling could be more interesting and far reaching than most in this thread actually considered it seems

---

While one can make a distinction between cases Rolex vs La Californienne (Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. Reference Watch LLC d/b/a La Californienne; Courtney Ormond; and Leszek Garwacki, 2:19-cv-09796) goes a long way to explain this.

Is this why there was along line at a shoe store at the mall before it opened today? Yes, I went to the mall today just as it opened. One of the shoe stores was late opening and there was 50 people lined up out side, waiting for the gate to raise up.

quote:

---

Is this why there was along line at a shoe store at the mall before it opened today?

---

No. I think they only made 666 pairs, and were taking orders online.

quote:

---

This guy is at the top of the charts

---

Where?
Billboard Top 100