3 ms·

I'm maybe misunderstanding this. They took shoes from nike, and modified them in various ways, then resold them. Nike sued because they left a nike logo visible

by syrrim 6y ago

I'm maybe misunderstanding this. They took shoes from nike, and modified them in various ways, then resold them. Nike sued because they left a nike logo visible. Isn't the right of first supposed to guarantee their right to resell these shoes?

TheDudeMan 6y ago
Yeah... I'm still trying to figure out what the illegal part was. Maybe they used the Nike logo on a web site promoting the shoes? Or maybe they repositioned the Nike logo on the shoe? Just having the logo on the shoe wouldn't be a problem. The logo was put there by Nike.
- habitue 6y ago
  If you materially alter the item, in a way that would surprise the consumer expecting an item with that trademark, it can be a problem. The example legal eagle on youtube gives is a sunglass manufacturer with special protective lenses. A reseller replaced the lenses, and a customer would be expecting the special lenses when they bought them with that trademark. So the court decided that change was material and found against the reseller.
georgyo 6y ago
There a few exceptions to the right of first sale. This video covers it in pretty good depth. https://youtu.be/GuYd4RP0_qk https://youtu.be/GuYd4RP0_qk
Theory5 6y ago
>"Nike sued MSCHF last week claiming the "Satan Shoes [were] likely to cause confusion and dilution and create an erroneous association" between MSCHF's products and the company. " Nike felt the way the shoes were marketed and sold was confusing enough that people might assume these were official Nike shoes. If you're speaking about the resale doctrine when you say "right of first" in trademark law it appears that altering the goods so they are materially different is where the line is drawn.if you substantially alter them, it sounds like you don't retain the rights and protections under the resellers doctrine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
mrzimmerman 6y ago
MSCHF actually settled the case, so this isn’t saying that the right of first doesn’t apply. I personally think that Nike would have lost the suit, but I am not a lawyer. I’m guessing MSCHF didn’t want to spend the money litigating and they had already sold the shoes anyway, so no big deal for them.

by syrrim 6y ago

TheDudeMan 6y ago

Yeah... I'm still trying to figure out what the illegal part was. Maybe they used the Nike logo on a web site promoting the shoes? Or maybe they repositioned the Nike logo on the shoe? Just having the logo on the shoe wouldn't be a problem. The logo was put there by Nike.

habitue 6y ago
If you materially alter the item, in a way that would surprise the consumer expecting an item with that trademark, it can be a problem. The example legal eagle on youtube gives is a sunglass manufacturer with special protective lenses. A reseller replaced the lenses, and a customer would be expecting the special lenses when they bought them with that trademark. So the court decided that change was material and found against the reseller.

georgyo 6y ago

There a few exceptions to the right of first sale. This video covers it in pretty good depth. https://youtu.be/GuYd4RP0_qk https://youtu.be/GuYd4RP0_qk

Theory5 6y ago

>"Nike sued MSCHF last week claiming the "Satan Shoes [were] likely to cause confusion and dilution and create an erroneous association" between MSCHF's products and the company. " Nike felt the way the shoes were marketed and sold was confusing enough that people might assume these were official Nike shoes. If you're speaking about the resale doctrine when you say "right of first" in trademark law it appears that altering the goods so they are materially different is where the line is drawn.if you substantially alter them, it sounds like you don't retain the rights and protections under the resellers doctrine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

mrzimmerman 6y ago

MSCHF actually settled the case, so this isn’t saying that the right of first doesn’t apply. I personally think that Nike would have lost the suit, but I am not a lawyer. I’m guessing MSCHF didn’t want to spend the money litigating and they had already sold the shoes anyway, so no big deal for them.