QUESTION
What are your thoughts on Nike vs. Drip Creationz?
Asked on Jul 26th, 2021 on Intellectual Property - Oregon
More details to this question:
Recently, Nike opened a lawsuit on Drip Creationz LLC, for counterfeit and unauthorized goods claims. Here's a couple articles on the entire situation: 1) https://www.complex.com/sneakers/nike-lawsuit-drip-creationz-custom-sneakers 2) https://www.thefashionlaw.com/in-new-suit-nike-says-it-cannot-allow-customizers-to-build-businesses-off-of-its-famous-trademarks/ Here's the full lawsuit: https://www.thefashionlaw.com/nike-inc-v-customs-by-ilene-inc-complaint/ My initial thoughts, Nike is only going after Drip as they literally made a 1 of 1 replica of Nike's 'Air Force 1 Lows' called the Drip 'D1' so Drip can increase their profits. Because sneaker customizing isn't a new thing. Why wouldn't Nike go after The Shoe Surgeon (https://www.instagram.com/theshoesurgeon/?hl=en) who actually changes the material of the shoes? And why wouldn't Nike go after companies like Etsy and eBay for listing and marketing, to use Nike's words, 'unauthorized designs'? First sale doctrine?
1 ANSWER
Patent Applications Filling and Prosecution Attorney serving Bellevue, WA
Partner at
Claiborne Patent Law Services
4 Awards
My thoughts are that it is Nike's intellectual property and they can choose their targets. It's certainly easier to make a case against a true knock-off than against customizations of legitimately purchased products. It's actually a completely different case, in general. The harm from knock-offs is that the consumer is likely to mistake the knock-off for the original product. The harm in the case of customizations is generally risk of tarnishment and dilution of the established brand.
Answered on Aug 02nd, 2021 at 8:17 AM