7 ms·
The key sentence: > Limited edition shoes can fetch higher prices among collectors so it is not clear how many - if any - customers will return the products.
by ehsankia 6y ago
The key sentence:
> Limited edition shoes can fetch higher prices among collectors so it is not clear how many - if any - customers will return the products.
No one who received these will return these for the original price, they're already worth orders of magnitude more as it is. This is all pretty meaningless.
Why would anyone return these? If anything, it sounds to me like this is YET another layer of MSCHF playing Nike like a fiddle. By ordering this "recall", the value of those shoes shot up even higher.
- asdfaoeu 6y agoI'm sure they will still sell but they may be harder to sell if Nike is blocking sales. In addition we don't really know the full value of the settlement. Potentially Nike will get some cut of the profit of the shoes not returned.
- simlevesque 6y agoThey know. It's just a good faith move.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- ada1981 6y agoSee what you did there...
- bntyhntr 6y agoI don't think anyone expects to see people take advantage of the recall. Nike found themselves in the position of being associated with Satan, which isn't a good look to many people. They defended their brand while keeping a relatively low profile and that seems like a good place to keep it. Going any further would just generate more attention when all they really need is a legal admission that they're not satanists.
- zamalek 6y ago> Nike found themselves in the position of being associated with Satan That's not necessarily it: if you don't enforce your trademarks you stand to lose them. Band-aid, dry ice, dumpster, escalator...
- tyingq 6y agoThe Jesus shoes, also from MSCHF, happened in 2019, and they apparently didn't do anything. But they filed a lawsuit within a few days of the Satan shoes.
- tialaramex 6y ago> if you don't enforce your trademarks you stand to lose them This is a widespread myth. Trademarks don't come up with any duty to enforce, and there is no penalty, explicit or implied, for not doing so. You don't even give up your right to sue tomorrow for something done today unless you have given some sort of explicit undertaking not to sue, in which case Estoppel applies to that specific case. For example if Nike told famous artist Bob Smith that they won't sue him for his limited run of 1000 hilarious "Just Fuck It" posters with the logo and style of Nike's "Just Do It", they can't wake up the next day and sue him anyway - estoppel prevents that from happening. But say Bob is thrilled by how well those thousand sell, and commissions a T-shirt, $50 each, with the same image. That's not what Nike agreed to, estoppel doesn't apply, they can sue. Or suppose Bob's rival Alex Lincoln sees the posters and decides hey, I can make "Just Fuck Off" posters, Nike don't have to humour that either, they haven't agreed not to sue Alex so they can no problem.
- 6y ago
- hn_throwaway_99 6y agoYeah, I don't think Nike "got played like a fiddle" at all. This was an absolute win-win for all involved. That art collective got tons of press, and now their limited edition shoes are worth even more as "those illegal shoes!" Nike got to save face in court and pretend like they really cared about not being associated with "satanists". Their "edgier" customers probably think it's cool that Nike's shoes were the base for this, and their conservative customers saw them as fighting against cultural decadence. This was marketing genius all the way around.
- ehsankia 6y agoNot sure I would really characterize that as a "win" for Nike. Barely even status-quo.