It’s been a dramatic few weeks for Nike and MSCHF (an arts collective/troll-y merchandise company), with the latter designing and selling 666 pairs of “Satan Shoes” as a tie-in with Lil Nas X’s “Montero” video and then getting sued by the former because the shoes were actually heavily customized Nike Air Max 97s. Nike was upset that there seemed to be a lot of confusion from pearl-clutchers and monocle-droppers over the shoes, with the desperate-to-be-offended quickly and vocally expressing their disgust that Nike would allow itself to be associated with the devil and a gay man who made a music video in which he gave the devil a lap dance. Nike was not actually involved with the shoes at all, so it filed a lawsuit demanding that it be compensated some untold amount of damages and that the shoes be destroyed. Lil Nas X wasn’t actually involved in the suit at all, which was a smart PR move on Nike’s part given how good his meme work is on social media, but Nike still seemed awfully upset about the whole stunt.
Now, in what is actually a pretty unsurprising conclusion to the whole affair, Nike and MSCHF have settled. This comes from The Verge, which says that—while the exact terms of the deal weren’t disclosed—MSCHF is allowing any customers who bought the shoes (which sold out immediately when they did go on sale) for a full refund of $1,018. We don’t know what will happen to any shoes that are returned, but MSCHF says it will keep the final unsold pair, presumably as a sobering reminder of when it got in trouble and not as some kind of trophy from the time it stared down Nike.
Nah, just kidding. That final pair is absolutely a trophy, and MSHF’s attorney’s implied as much in a statement given to The Verge. Remember when we referred to it as a “troll-y merchandise company”? And what does a troll want more than money and the ability to sell very expensive shoes made of evil? That’s right: attention! In the statement, the attorneys said they’re “pleased” with the decision to settle, adding that “MSCHF intended to comment on the absurdity of the collaboration culture practiced by some brands, and about the perniciousness of intolerance.” They say this comment was “dramatically amplified” by Nike’s lawsuit, and now that MSCHF has “achieved its artistic purpose” with these shoes, it figured that settling the lawsuit and moving on was the best move.
Everybody wins, except MSCHF probably wins more because it got a bunch of publicity out of this and got to freak out some normals. It could theoretically be out nearly $700,000 if everyone who bought these shoes decides to return them, but that’s not going to happen when the shoes are now going for thousands of dollars on eBay.
37 Comments
I didn’t understand the obsession with shoes in the 90s when Jordans were first a thing, and I don’t get it now.
That explains those Uggs.
They were a perfectly fine piece of the footwear the Americans ruined.
I never understood the girls that wear Uggs every day along with short shorts.
HA!!!!!
I get the obsession because I love me some fancy kicks; what I don’t understand is people building neon shrines in their house for their collection…and then NEVER WEARING THE SHOES.
I’m a handyman and I’m in an out of houses all day. I have ten different clients who have shoe shrines. Two of them work for the Pistons.
Lol right? Look I love me some shoes too but I definitely wear mine. My nicer ones I will wear for special occasions and if they get scuffed or dirty, I make sure to clean them when I get home. What’s the point of having them if you can’t show them off?
I know! It’d be like adults buying toys and never using them, and we know that never happens!
It’s a status symbol thing like why a guy needs so many (expensive) watches. Or women who needs a lot of shoes. Growing up in the 80s, I envied kids who would get a new pair of shoes every month. Whatever was the hottest kicks coming out that month, they had them. Sigh…I guess some things never change.PS: And these kids are not buying these shoes. I’ve always been curious at what kinda bank their parents were making.
My fellow Americans, our long national nightmare is over…
“Cue the next, much longer national nightmare.”
why satanism are legal? – musa, baghdad, 2013 or 2014
I love the uncertainty about the date there.
Don’t be fooled: dates are just a scam made up by Big Calendar to sell more of their product.
I still don’t see what’s so bad about showing your appreciation for Earth’s savior from Perfect Cell and Majin Buu.
I’ll admit that I was outraged at first. I mean, who the hell sets out to make a Satin-worshipping shoe, and settles on a sneaker instead of a pump!?
Just wait until they come out with a Hitler shoe and Fox News says the shoe design is “misunderstood” and “makes some good points”.
“The Hitler Shoe: our warranty will last for a thousand years!”
“actually the symbol on my Reich-e’s means “peace”!! who’s intolerant now libtards??”
“Nike did nothing wrong.”
TBH, I am sort of surprised some artist hasn’t already tried to make a shoe or some other article of clothing using the swastika in it’s original form as a good luck symbol ( It was reversed for Hitler’s use of it.) just as a publicity stunt to see how everyone would react.Damn, the prices on eBay are insane. Some as much as $3,500. One buy it now for $10K. Not likely.
I’m not a lawyer but I heard that in these kinds of settlements…the devil is in the details…
And the worst part, legally, is Nike has zero case. SCOTUS isn’t going to nuke the first sale doctrine from orbit, especially not this one since they upheld it with, essentially, the same makeup as last time:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirtsaeng_v._John_Wiley_%26_Sons,_Inc. 6-3 ruling in favor of the reseller.
Breyer, Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, and Kagan upheld first sale; Ginsburg, Kennedy and Scalia dissented. And all three of those dissenters no longer serve.But Nike lawyers > MSCHF lawyers, and the US follows the golden rule: he who has the most gold makes the rule…
I like you linked to a case that has absolutely nothing to do with this case. Internet lawyering!
It involves the first sale doctrine. Right there it has more than “absolutely nothing” to do with this case. Internet commenting!
Is it an exact 1 to 1 match? No, but nothing is. Cases are argued on similar precedence. Like the linked and every other case SCOTUS has tried that has similarly upheld first sale.
You linked a case regarding the first sale doctrine of unmodified copyrighted material created internationally being sold domestically. That has absolutely nothing to do with this case. In fact, legal precedence can easily be cited to the contrary and to use that ruling to somehow ‘prove’ that Nike had no case means you don’t understand what is actually in the lawsuit.
I believe their case is less rooted in a problem with the first sale doctrine and more in that they were causing confusion in the market and associating Nike’s trademark with a product they did not create or approve. Given the number of people who did seem legitimately confused about Nike’s involvement they may well have had a case on those grounds.
It’d still be harder on Nike given they didn’t raise a stink about the holy water shoes, for example: they allowed dilution to happen before. That’s why Kleenex, Adobe, Google, Xerox are all over casual usage.
Who could really say, I guess, but that the two settled with such a toothless resolution, it really feels like Nike knows they’d lose in court in the end…but MSCHF knows their bank account couldn’t handle the trip -to- the end.
The holy water shoes didn’t get a fraction of the media attention that the Satan blood shoes did though, so it wasn’t as likely to affect their brand image and was easier to ignore. Also a shoe based on Satan is inherently going to be more controversial and potentially brand damaging than one based on Jesus what with Satan generally being a more controversial figure amongst the average American consumer.
That’s because the holy water stunt wasn’t associated with evil or bad stuff. And thus Nike didnt throw a stinker over.Or you expect Nike to lay down and bow before the gay lord of hell?
I feel like this is a good time to drop LegalEagle into the conversation.
The holy water shoes by the same company based on the exact same model of nike’s didn’t cause any issues for some reason.
For once I want to hear from the Devil’s advocate
Sweatshop Nike.
Tl;dr Hail Satan, hail yourselves
I thought customizing shoes is a thing? example: https://www.etsy.com/market/custom_shoes_nike Is Nike now going to go after everyone that resells Nike shoes after customizing them?