- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
'Just Do It' isn't a done thing in this case Nike Files Trademark Infringement Suit Against Designer of rapper Lil Nas X's 'Satan Shoes' The American multinational company Nike Inc has filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against a New York-based designer who modified its shoes for young rapping sensation Lil Nas X and launched the same in the retail market as its...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
'Just Do It' isn't a done thing in this case
Nike Files Trademark Infringement Suit Against Designer of rapper Lil Nas X's 'Satan Shoes'
The American multinational company Nike Inc has filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against a New York-based designer who modified its shoes for young rapping sensation Lil Nas X and launched the same in the retail market as its limited-edition satanic-themed Air Max 97 shoes.
In its suit filed before the New York federal court, the American MNC has claimed that the MSCHF Product Studio Inc altered its trademarked product without its "permission and authorization".
The customized footwear are decorated with a pentagram pendant, pentagram designs on the heel and an inverted cross on the tongue pull-tab. The back of one shoe says "MSCHF" and the other says "Lil Nas X."
The accused MSCHF Products Studio has in a way already admitted to the charges leveled against it with its CEO Gabe Whaley admitting in a statement that Nike did not have any involvement whatsoever in the project.
He added that his streetwear company purchased the sneakers from Nike and then made its own modifications before marketing them.
Monetro Lamar Hill, 21, who goes by his stage name Lil Nas X and is a Grammy-winning rapper, released a music video recently in which he is seen dancing with a character wearing devil horns, though the rapper has not been named in the suit.
The modified shoes sold out like hotcakes with all 666 pairs of the Satan Shoes getting sold off within a minute of its launch. Each pair of shoes was priced at $1,018. Nike was forced to issue a media statement that the MDCHF's Satan Shoes is not a product authorized or approved by it and that it does not endorse it.
Nike, which is suing for trademark infringement, dilution and unfair competition, asked the Court to immediately stop MSCHF from fulfilling orders for the shoes and requested a jury trial to seek damages.