MSCHF continues its biblical references with a nod to The Vatican, who is known for their intricate jewels and traditional red shoes.
The pair have been filled with 60cc of water that was originally sourced from the River Jordan and then blessed, meaning wearers are able to, theoretically, walk on Holy Water. Lil Nas X, who posted a prank “apology” video for the shoes yesterday, is not named as a defendant in the suit.#hypebeastdrops: Brooklyn-based creative label MSCHF has tapped INRI (Iesus Nazaraeus Rex Iudaeorum) to produce a customized Nike Air Max 97 that evokes the miracle of Jesus walking on water in Matthew 14:25. MSCHF didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. “I expect Nike might be hoping for a quick, low-key settlement in which MSCHF agrees not to ship out the shoes.” “I’m not shocked Nike chose to sue, but I think they might also want to proceed with caution to avoid being perceived as squelching speech or siding with the Christian right over a popular Black artist,” says Roberts. But as The Fashion Law notes, MSCHF has anticipated and even told Insider it invited lawsuits in the past, saying a suit would “help increase the value of the product.” By taking it to court, Nike is almost certainly boosting the profile of MSCHF’s latest drop, as well as potentially causing new problems. So it makes sense that Nike might distance itself. The Satan Shoes dropped alongside a provocative Lil Nas X music video that’s drawn the ire of conservative commentators. “I think other high fashion brands will be keeping a close eye on this case.” “I think other high fashion brands will be keeping a close eye on this case,” Roberts says. Depending on how a court weighs all those factors, it could create a precedent for future cases. “But what about the businesses making jewelry out of authentic Chanel buttons, or cutting fringes into genuine Vuitton bags?” Earlier this year, in fact, Chanel sued a company for “misappropriating” its brand for recycled button earrings.īasically, MSCHF bought shoes that it could legally resell using Nike’s branding, but it heavily modified them into what’s arguably a new product whose quality Nike can’t control, then sold them as a commercial good rather than a traditional art piece. You can also do things like dismember Barbie dolls and sell pictures of them as art. It’s fine to directly resell products, Roberts says, and it’s legal to advertise goods while mentioning somebody else’s trademark.
“The case has potentially broad implications because we’re seeing a rise in this kind of customization of branded goods as well as upcycling,” Roberts told The Verge via email. If the case goes to trial, though, there’s more than a limited-edition satanic shoe line at stake. Very, very few people will ever own a $1,000 blood-and-pentagram sneaker. “How is Nike not involved when there’s a Nike symbol on the shoe!!!” It can also claim the shoes are protected as a parody or argue that buyers are unlikely to confuse these modified Satan Shoes with off-the-shelf Nikes, random internet commenters notwithstanding. It can cite the First Sale Doctrine, which protects reselling goods that are protected by intellectual property laws - like people selling designer clothes on Poshmark, for instance.
“Consumers’ belief that the Satan Shoes are genuine Nike products is causing consumers to never want to purchase any Nike products in the future.”Īs University of New Hampshire law professor Alexandra Roberts noted on Twitter, MSCHF can defend itself on multiple grounds. “MSCHF is deceiving consumers into believing that Nike manufactures or approves of the Satan Shoes,” Nike’s complaint claims. “This is sickening!!! How is Nike not involved when there’s a Nike symbol on the shoe!!!” says another. To make its case, Nike cites social media comments from people who don’t realize MSCHF was just unofficially reselling the shoes. Contains 60cc ink and 1 drop of human blood