Mike23 Served Cease & Desist
Nearly 3 years ago MIKE, formally known as Mike 23 Inc., was born with one goal in mind - to provide the market with what was missing. When Scott Nelson, founder of MIKE, was asked what was a driving force of inspiration, he replied “the greatest man to ever lace up a pair of sneakers and play the game of basketball, Michael Jeffrey Jordan” as he said in an interview with FreshnessMag in 2005.
Famed for “bringing crack back”, MIKE has gained major attention over the past several years with appearances in culture and art magazines such as Mass Appeal and Juxtopoz, but also in mainstream magazines including SLAM, XXL, and Complex. His brand’s use of elephant print caught major attention from sneakerheads, Jordan enthusiasts, and celebrities too.
Last month, I had a brief visit with Scott on the floor of MAGIC in Las Vegas, but ironically the same day that I met with him and saw his upcoming products, Nike’s legal team dated a Cease & Desist letter that was received by Scott after the trade show.
The letter acknowledges that Scott Nelson has described MIKE as a tribute to Jordan, but continues: “Nike and Converse hereby demand that you and Mike23 Inc. cease and desist from all infringing use of any mark, logo or design that infringes Nike and Converse’s rights.” Further, the demand requests an “orderly withdrawal of all infringing products from the market,” and that Mike23.com be “disabled immediately, at least to the extent that any page shows or references an infringing mark, logo or design or references Michael Jordan.”
Scott has indicated that he has is in no position to wage a legal fight with Nike, and even if victorious, most of his retailers hold accounts with Nike or Jordan that they would not be willing to jeopardize.
While we are not looking to side one way or the other, we do have to pose one valid question - why after nearly 3 years of active commerce was he sent the C&D and not when his business began? Great read about this topic on murketing as well as an interview with Scott from two years ago.
|
|
Related Articles |
45 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post.
I WONDER HOW CAN I GET ONE OF THESE MAGS
Comment by datdudereggie — March 18, 2008 @ 11:14 am
This is very sad if you ask me. The culture gives so much to this brand, yet when it comes down to it, they don’t appreciate it one bit.
I think I remember reading somewhere that Scott Nelson sent his gear to Beaverton because Sandy Bodecker and Paul Rodriguez liked his ish.
Big ups to Nice Kicks for reporting this. Believe it or not, this is pretty huge news as it says alot about a brand we throw thousands of dollars to each year.
Comment by Mikes n Nikes — March 18, 2008 @ 11:28 am
WTF Nike.
First Gabe Urist, now Mike? Let me guess, you are going to try to sue Sneaktip?
This just proves that Nike doesn’t have love for our culture - just our money.
Comment by sneakFREAK — March 18, 2008 @ 11:31 am
NIKE does not play about their money! As a corporation they are mega and run a tight ship…if you think you’re gonna make a buck off of them you are mistaken! Even if it’s for the love of the culture they will shut you down once you get too big and appear on their radar!
Personally I like the product that MIKE put out and I think Nike should consult and employ people who are really creative and have real insight into the culture…
Comment by nikeindabutt — March 18, 2008 @ 11:38 am
Mannnn this is messed up. Mike23 had some good products that he released and its messed up that Nike would come and shut his creativity down. They should offer him a job if anything. Like the article said, if he’s been doing it for 3 years they shouldn’t shut him down now that he has a successful business, it’s not like he’s making knock off Jordan sneakers or anything. Jordan brand still makes tons of money off their releases
Comment by TR3V!N — March 18, 2008 @ 11:49 am
I think that Nike should really reconsider the benefits they get from companies like MIKE. Honestly, when i see clothing or accessories made for certain shoes, it will push me to buy those shoes more. They should have just asked for a merge and not just shut him down completely. I’m dissapointed in how selfish they can be.
Comment by Haz — March 18, 2008 @ 12:04 pm
man. that’s just messed up. what the hell nike still owns jordan?can’t they be sued for making a monopoly?
Comment by Mecks — March 18, 2008 @ 12:07 pm
I think this is a half and half thing for me. I agree with Nike for what they are doing BUT I think they shouldnt have waited so long to do something about it if it was such a big problem for them. And the other half of me is really pissed b/c we have been seeing the same old stuff being put out from Nike/Jordan Brand for so long now that I think having Mike23 is a great idea just like BobbyFresh is a great idea: plus I dont think they would have a good case against Mike23 unless he was useing logos and such… Idont think the cement print or the number 23 OR the name “Mike” is copywritten or even can be. I think Nike/Jordan Brand should be MORE focused on shutting down places that do hurt their sales such as the fake industry. Those factories are getting away with murder and taking huge chunks out of potential sales. Just my thoughts on all of this…
Comment by Nightwing2303 — March 18, 2008 @ 12:22 pm
Mecks- “man. that’s just messed up. what the hell nike still owns jordan?can’t they be sued for making a monopoly?”
Its only a monopoly if Nike owns EVERY sneaker/ apperal and sport company. They already have Jordan and Converse… if they then bought Adidas, Reebok, K Swiss, Champion, Under Amour and so on would they be a monopoly
Comment by Nightwing2303 — March 18, 2008 @ 12:25 pm
Well, not to totally defend Nike, but when it comes to the courts and copyright, Nike has few options. If it doesn’t protect its copytight, then it loses it. If someone else decided to go further than Mike23 Inc and copy Nike totally using names and likeness, they won’t be able to defend in court as well as they could
So they have to stop operations like this in order to show the court that they want and will protect their copyright.
Not saying anyone here has to understand it, but that is how it works.
Nike can’t shut down Mike23 because there is plenty of court precedent that says that a name of a company that is CLOSE to another brand is not enough to shut it down. So Mike23 will stay alive and even his designs too. But all references to Micheal Jordan and Nike employees who represent Nike will have to be removed.
Its messed up that it has to be this way, but that is the ruff world of business. I think they should and could eventually offer him a license to be connected to Nike or just outright hire him… but there may be some branding and other problems with that decision.
Comment by PhilWil — March 18, 2008 @ 12:28 pm
thats just wrong. he was actually making them money. its all about the dough. i hope this come back to bite them somehow
Comment by bkbigjay — March 18, 2008 @ 12:31 pm
I don’t blame Nike…there is a line and he stepped over
Comment by Flatsole — March 18, 2008 @ 12:56 pm
i think nike is messing up their sales shutting down gabriel urist and mike23. they are not too smart and they dont seem to appreciate our culture’s brands. like c,mon why cant everyone eat ?
Comment by stylez4dayz — March 18, 2008 @ 1:38 pm
He was not making them money because he is in no way affiliated with NIKE This was bootleg Jordan Sh*t Cmon Now why is every one suprised you have to build evidence to create a case sit back and gather all ya information thats why i took three years gotta have ya facts straight.
Comment by Koofie Smacker — March 18, 2008 @ 1:39 pm
It wasnt bootleg it was legit. He just made nice stuff that matched your J’s. That makes me kinda angry cuz he had nice stuff and great ideas.
Comment by A. Morrison — March 18, 2008 @ 2:38 pm
I bet they wouldn’t pull this on bape they wouldn’t dare Nike are a bunch of garden tools specifically the one that starts with h . Bape has been jocking their AF1 silhouette since 93.
That was foul to do this duke . I might cutback on Nike because that was some foul ish.
Comment by Anonymous45 — March 18, 2008 @ 4:09 pm
Interesting points everyone. While we are remaining neutral on this issue, we do appreciate all of the points of view and valid arguments i.e. what about Bape?
Keep the comments coming and feel free to share this article with friends. The more view points, the better.
Comment by Nice Kicks — March 18, 2008 @ 4:18 pm
half of you peons don’t know any of what you’re talking about. he didn’t “step over the line” because if ANY body has stepped over the line, look at all the af1 clones like bape and such. and do you know how they can’t get sued? because they altered things. once you alter ANY logo just alittle bit, its no longer that company’s logo and there for, its not “copyright infringement”. their logo says MIKE, not NIKE and their Jumpman looks totally different, look at the arms. why hasn’t nike sued undercrown? not only have they jacked the cement pattern but they work heavily with a rival company. MIKE23 could actually win the case if they wanted to because nothing they have done is in direct violation or duplication of Nike.
Comment by big grizzly — March 18, 2008 @ 4:24 pm
lots of good points here, and im all for the little guy getting his and making some money at the same time, but be realistic and genuine with it….
Mike23 took ideas that weren’t his, put his own spin on them and made money off of it…. you want to contribute to the “culture”, then come up with something orignal and dont tred on other peoples ideas and hard work….
Comment by CRUMBSNATCHER — March 18, 2008 @ 5:41 pm
I would agree w/ CRUMBSNATCHER but Nicekicks does similar things with its t-shirts and useing patterns from Jordans (and they are made to go with them not take away ppls ideas). Nike should stop THIS from happening……
Comment by Nightwing2303 — March 18, 2008 @ 6:17 pm
They already took Bape to court a couple of years ago and lost because although Bape xeroxed the Sole of the AF1 it has no likeness of the Swoosh symbol and you can’t sue based on kinda looks like but they didn’t go as far copy anything else off the AF1. I hate bape and mike did have some nice products you can’t change a few letters and the same design that symbols NIKE without bring some heat your way but when you’re a small company it’s Big Bank take litte Bank and Nike is def Big Bank. What they really should do is link up with Mike because some of his gear is def better than some of the wack crap they releasing now i. e. the elephant print shorts whoever they got designing now is slipping give mike a job and go after all the FAKE BOOTLEGG COMPANIES SELLING JORDAN FOR $79.99 AND SOME OF THE EBAY FRAUDS
Comment by solesaved — March 18, 2008 @ 6:45 pm
SHAME ON NIKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I agree with Big Grizzly but strongly disagree with Crumbsnatcher. Take a product, alter it making it your own, and sell it…….A perfect point to make is that is exactly what FACEBOOK did….put their own spin on MySpace and that turned out to be uber lucrative! Isn’t that what artists do with their own songs? Take a song and put their own spin on it. Why NOT take a product, make it better, and in the process make a buck or two? After all, it is the improvement that ppl desire, thus the sales for the “little guy”.
NIKE is just jealous that other peeps are getting hype b/c their clothing SUCKS! MiGente is another brand making waves and I swear if NIKE touches them, I’m done with their B#%$# @SS!
It really is simple to boycott them, but it requires UNITY. If you want voices to be heard, you have to hit them in their pocketbooks.
Comment by TechNutt — March 18, 2008 @ 7:36 pm
GOOD! this dude is a leech. get your own product and stop milking off of nike’s product.
Comment by Tony T — March 18, 2008 @ 7:45 pm
i agree with nike for doing that
Comment by greenmaker24 — March 18, 2008 @ 9:16 pm
I suggest some of you study a bit of law before saying what you can and can’t do.
“Infringment occurs whenever somebody excercises, without authorization, the rights exclusively reserved for the copyright owner. Infringement need not be intentional. To prove infringement, the plaintiff must simply establish that he owns the copyright and that the defendant violated one or more of the plaintiff’s exclusive rights under the copyright. PROOF OF INFRINGEMENT USUALLY CONSISTS OF SHOWING THAT THE ALLEGEDLY INFRINGING WORK IS SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR to the copyrighted work and that the alleged infringer had access to the copyrighted work.”
Thus a clothing company which uses Black and red colorways, cement print, Nike fonts, and a shillouette of a basketball player dunking is most definately infringing on the copyright which Jordan Brand owns.
I don’t know why Nike chose to take so long to file suit, but they would most likely win this case.
Comment by Flatsole — March 18, 2008 @ 9:48 pm
And I forgot to reference (like it matters to you guys) but that is from “Businss Law and the Regulation of Business” by Richard A. Mann and Barry S. Roberts
Comment by Flatsole — March 18, 2008 @ 9:52 pm
Tony T & greenmaker24 how do you think that? he’s a fan of nike. he makes gear to go with your nikes, you aren’t gonna see someone wearing Adidas with his gear. you will only see some nike air jordans. he made stuff just for them. he brought them customers people would buy stuff from nike just to match the gear. this guy isn’t making enough to compete with nike, why must they be a bunch of d***s about it? he wasn’t stealing anything,
he was complimenting them with gear to match.its like those companies that make stuff for the i pod. they have nothing to do with the apple brand, they just sell attachments and stuff like that. that way everyone can eat. its their right to do it, but come on, they aren’t losing anything from it.
Comment by bkbigjay — March 18, 2008 @ 9:59 pm
^^^^ I see there is a lot of lawyers on the his site but few really know what they are talking about when nike and say ipod get together and make a running shoe that lets you download or keep track of how many miles you ran or or speed or heart rate it is simply a collaboration between the two companies under contract with each other for a number of years or models of sneaks or whatever the companies agree on to use each other product to work together to benefit both companies ipod can’t make a ipod to use with nike running shoes without nike permission nike can’t put it logo on the ipod or advertise theirs products with each other without permission . I think if Mike has the money and want to deal with the drawn out legal fight he may have a good case because you can’t copyright a basic color that anybody can use and that they nike didn’t really create like red and black we all know the first Nike Jordans were red white and black but thats a basic color and every sneaker company has red and black shoes. The elephant print i never saw it on any sneaks before jordans but that not to say nike really created it and that some other company wasn’t using on garmnets or whatever they would need to prove that they nike created it. Mikes dunking man logo is a totally different likeness than the jordan jumpman logo shaq has a dunkman logo, And 1 has a man and ball logo the mike logo is not a direct likeness of the jordan so i think they on the losing end with that one but his MIKE logo on this page is very similar to the NIKE in looks and design and may lead some buyers to think that the product is in some way affiliated with nike or jordan and which may bring him more money even if he does not work for them which is misleading. I agree some of Mike Products do look very similar and can be mistaken for nike or jordan products simply put you can’t come on the block of the Big Boss i.e. JORDAN OR NIKE with the product they created and make money without being apart of that family or making $$$$ off them with out cutting them in on a major slice of the profits. Like a said before Nike is the Grand Champ Pitbull in the dog eat dog sneaker game
Comment by solesaved — March 19, 2008 @ 1:38 am
Exactly MATT, what about BAPE????
Bape copies every shoe company (especially Nike), and Nike isn’t trying to shut NIGO down..
The fact that Nike isn’t going at other companies, especially Bape, is a cowards move to me…
Comment by flyasthesky — March 19, 2008 @ 1:43 am
what people don’t know is, the og jordan 3’s weren’t the crackle print. it was an elephant skin print and they said they couldn’t find the og material for the retros so they dropped the crackle afterwards, but TROOP was doing it before the jordan 3’s but people don’t realize that.
Comment by lex — March 19, 2008 @ 6:22 am
nike is just being petty. do you see Adidas suing RBK/ice cream over the use of the Stan Smith model? is Coogi suing Undercrown for BLATANT use of their material on their tags and designs? Supreme should get sued because they stole their entire logo and font from an already established artists style, but is her estate bugging over it? do you see a C&D order to Gourmet over their jacking of the “body” of famous jordans? is Versace suing Crooks n Castles over the used of the Medusa? and you know why the answer to all these questions is no? because all of the items in question somehow differ from what they were borrowed from and once you alter it, its no longer the same. again, as i mentioned, Mike isn’t the only company who has used the cement pattern because Nike doesn’t own it, the Game’s Hurricane shoe has it, Undercrown’s shoe has it, i saw a pair of Lakai’s with it and many other shoes so why hasn’t Nike sued them? because they are trying to bully the little man who thinks he will lose and has no knowledge on how to beat them. if Wesley Snipes could beat the IRS out of paying over 20 mil in taxes, Mike can win this case alone off of what is being said here.
Comment by lex — March 19, 2008 @ 6:32 am
and my last question for the night: i keep seeing people say they “see Mike stuff that looks like Nike’s stuff”. like what? name one product that came out from Mike that looks like something that Nike has dropped. again, this is PRODUCT, not a font style. the only SHOE that mike has dropped looked like a low top converse with cement all over it. and nike hasn’t dropped anything like that. New Era fitted came out with hats that were COVERED with cement print yet nike didn’t say anything to them.
Comment by lex — March 19, 2008 @ 6:48 am
MIKE IS TAKING FORMER NIKE IDEAS AND DOING IT FOR HIMSELF SMART GREAT ENTREPRENEURALSHIP BUT LIKE IT OR NOT IT IS POTENTIALLY TAKING AWAY NIKE REVENUE…SHUT HIM DOWN THEN HIRE HIM SOLVES THE PROBLEM THEN BRINGS CREATIVITY TO THE ORIGINAL NIKE PRODUCT
Comment by NASTY_NAJ — March 19, 2008 @ 8:28 am
Ok well you guys say new era produced a hat that had cement well.. i believe new era is in this as well. Mike is sueing new era for producing that hat copying MIKE. anyways this is BS nike is a MEGA ORGANIZATION they wont stand for competators. all im saying is FEAR THE CEMENT PRINT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Comment by RC — March 19, 2008 @ 7:34 pm
ABOUT TIME! It is one thing to be inspired by something and create from there, but to simply jack EVERYTHING and try to call it a “tribute” is a joke! “Find your own sh*t and BE ORIGINAL!!!”
Comment by GOOD — March 19, 2008 @ 7:46 pm
Wow, i wish I wasn’t at work & could contribute more to this discussion but a couple things…1. Nike, shame on you, really though! 2. Go hard at Bape, they started this ish! 3. & final…since I think the MIKE stuff was so dope, please put an even harder efforts & punishments to Gourmet for their stuff!
Thanks
Big Dix (T.O. Home of the hater)
Comment by Dixon Syder — March 19, 2008 @ 7:56 pm
Ok you guys aren’t understanding that you can use black and red colors even with cement print and its perfectly fine! Many companies have had this c/w and print on a shoe. But when your company name is the player’s first name, written in the font of the company, and the player’s # you are infringing on the intellectual property.
Comment by Flatsole — March 19, 2008 @ 7:57 pm
If you want to learn more, study the case of White v. Samsung and read the judge’s comments. It is an appropriation case, which Mike23 could possibly be tried for, where a Samsung add uses a robotic woman who uses gestures and actions similar to that of Vanna White. The judge in this case even gives an example with how Michael Jordan could be appropriated and Mike23 does almost exactly this! If you’re interested I can get the judge’s exact words but some of you aren’t going to admit you’re wrong no matter what.
Why might Nike do this at all? Well, Mike23 is making SOMETHING off the efforts of Nike. What happens if Nike allows this type of behavior to continue? Little by little, Nike will have certain of its most popular ideas eaten away.
And to Bape now. It would be a more difficult case because shapes and molds are not directly intellectual property. You CAN make simple changes to the shape of the shoe and be legal. You would have to make changes to the logo and not have it be mistankenly similar.
I’m sure Nike tried to go after Bape years before they even hit the US.
Comment by Flatsole — March 19, 2008 @ 8:05 pm
One person asks (Comment by Flatsole — March 18, 2008 @ 9:48 pm):
I don’t know why Nike chose to take so long to file suit, but they would most likely win this case.
Because as I said before: Well, not to totally defend Nike, but when it comes to the courts and copyright, Nike has few options. If it doesn’t protect its copytight, then it loses it.
I am sure Nike applauded what MIKE was doing, but at the end of the day, they had to put a stop to it.
As for this comment: Thus a clothing company which uses Black and red colorways, cement print, Nike fonts, and a silhouette’s of a basketball player dunking is most definitely infringing on the copyright which Jordan Brand owns.
Not totally true. MIKE can still exist as a company called MIKE and use cement print and even a person dunking AS LONG AS they do not use the Jordan flight silhouette and use known representatives of NIKE employees or known associates like Micheal Jordan.
So MIKE can continue and the t-shirts and the other stuff, but anything that directly infringes on NIKE patents and copyrights won’t work. MIKE has to totally disassociate itself with the idea of celebrating Micheal Jordan and move toward just making stuff that matches the Jordan brand sneaker.
This is why BAPE won its case and why FILA will win its case (it is has one) vs Gucci for those sneakers that look ALLLOT like what Gucci makes.
Comment by PhilWil — March 19, 2008 @ 8:23 pm
PhilWil, take a CLOSE look at the jumpman and the Mike “jumpman”. for one, the Mike version has some big ass shorts and a t shirt on with his arm doing one thing and his legs are more closed compared to the REAL jumpman. so that is wrong in itself. second, nike’s “trademark” color now is orange. it has never been black and red. and you can’t sue anybody for using a Font style. if thats the case, EVERYBODY could be sued because pretty much every company uses somebody elses font at some point or another. you can copyright a logo, but not a font style. and as far as the Fila case, you mean Prada. and if that was the case, why didn’t Gucci sue RBK for the OG S.Carters? that was the most BLATANT copy EVER, more than bape copying the af1.
Comment by big grizzly — March 20, 2008 @ 2:11 am
All Of yall FAKE INTERNET LAWYERS ARE FUNNY AND PROBABLY WOULDN’T KNOW YOU HIT WATER IF YOU FELL OUT A BOAT i hear a lot of people saying this isn’t infringement where is your law degree and a if a major shoe company aka the Number 1!!!!! selling shoe company in the world has a legal team do you think they going to have a bunch dumb lawyers that don’t know what they talking about think people yall gettin quotes out of law books and s**t who cares what he said or this source said the bottom line is this is infringement and everybody thats mad oh well you can’t do nothing about it if he didn’t feel guilty he would keep making his products although Scott has indicated that he is in no position to wage a legal fight with Nike you know why because he knows his ideas come from Nike’s products and Nike hasn’t sued him yet the cease and desist letter is a WARNING to let him know to stop making and promoting your infringing products. WHY DO YOU THINK HE IS NOT FIGHTING THIS I’LL GIVE YOU ONE ok he’s not in a position to go up against This major shoe company but Think about this HE HAS NO PATENT ON ANY OF HIS PRODUCTS WHY BECAUSE THEY ARE BASED OFF NIKES IDEAS WITH SOME OF THEM BEING EXACT LIKE THE ELEPHANT PRINT AND NIKE DOES HAVE PATENTS ON THEIR PRODUCTS and the name “MIKE23Inc” come on now who do you think he is talking about man this is so easy to figure out and none of Yall Harvard Law degree holders can do it. I know i said this before but they didn’t go after him right off the back because they have to get all of their facts straight basically investigate his work and if you know something about our Legal Justice System It Pays to build a case first then to jump right in to it you need valid points, evidence, times, and dates pictures all of these things matter when you go to court and yes it can take 3 years to gather information. So stop gettin mad the bottom line is if you had a company and someone copied your products or had something close to your product you would go after them too unless you like people taking money out ya pocket END OF DISCUSSION!!!
Comment by Koofie Smacker — March 20, 2008 @ 10:13 am
Streetwear, street culture and artists have always re-interpreted iconic logos and pop culture images to connect to people. (i.e. Andy Warhol) In their eyes they are ‘re-appropriating’ these images for their subculture. It has gone on and will continue to, they will draw out emotional response and debate about originality and legality.
I may be ‘dating’ myself here, but this reminds me of a situation back in 1992-3, when SSUR put out his ‘awidas’ t-shirt. He took the adidas fleur logo added two leaves making it look like a marijuana leaf. This was also at the time when GFS (Gerb, Futura and Stash) came out with their “Phillies Blunt” tees, which I believe they later granted them a license to use the logo for a fee instead of a long drawn out legal battle because the shirts generated such a buzz for the brand. (citation needed – lol)
It was different case with SSUR, the adidas legal team not only served him with a cease and desist, but with fines based on profits from the sales of the shirt. They went so far as to hitting the retailers (like Union and 555-Soul) with the same penalty.
The c & d stated that they did not want the brand affiliated with drug culture, which is funny since two years later they produce hemp footwear and this year are releasing a ‘shelltoe’ in tobacco color with a “Philies Blunt-looking” logo on the tongue. Corporate hypocrisy!
The point I want to address is why did Nike wait so long to address this situation with Mike 23. We have to understand that most corporate giant legal teams are so far removed from sneaker/street culture and even their own product departments that one notion could be that they didn’t even know Mike 23 existed until recently. Another thing is, even if Scott was flowing product to Mike Parker or Gemo Wong and they loved it, it has nothing to do with legal department. I’m sure there were meetings discussing the Mike23 once it did get to legal and the PR ramifications that will come from this, but you have to throw rhyme or reason out of the window when it comes to legal.
I mean look, Nike sues Mike 23, Mike23 sueing New Era for the crackle print, which was used by Jordan…
Comment by subculture conglomerate — March 20, 2008 @ 12:20 pm
How many of these posts is scott himself?
“They should have just asked for a merge and not just shut him down completely. I’m dissapointed in how selfish they can be.”
thats totally the owners of mike23. get over yourselves.
aahahhahahahahahahahahahahahaa
why is NIKE the bad guy,Mike23 robbed them and built a brand off Nikes designs!!!!!
…so they cant tell him to stop?
design your own stuff.
Comment by Mike24 — March 20, 2008 @ 10:38 pm
well, for all the people on here asking “where are you degrees and how would you know” in this thread, i work in the industry and that is how i know what is “infringement” and what is not. i keep reading and hearing “they robbed nike and built off of their designs and such”. how? show me ONE product that Mike23 has dropped that looks like a product that nike has dropped? does nike have a patent for cement? NO! and if you online herbs did your research you would know that. does Nike own the rights to black and red stuff? NO! the ONLY thing Nike can prove a point against is the Font issue. Mike has never dropped a shirt with a silhouette of a Jordan sneaker, and their “jumpmen” logos are totally different from the Nike one. why didn’t bape get sued over plain as day biting? because they changed and altered the design and once you do that then you can’t sue for infringement because they own the copyright for LOGOS not that shoe design which is why you see so many other AF1 clones but no lawsuits. and if you knew anything about court, your court fees are sometimes more than what you win so what is the point of fighting it if all you are going to do is lose money? and i keep hearing herbs on here saying “design your won stuff” when majority of the crap you drool over on hypebeast and such is bitten from other things. i dont see you peons saying anything about Crooks and Castles, Bape, Undercrown, Lemar and Dauley, Shmack, Premeire Boutique and other brands? All those brands DO is bite. how many of you all own Apple products? Jonathan Ives designed the iPod, iMac, iPod docking station, All Mac monitors and the Mac CPU’s and he bit EVERY design from Dieter Rams and you know how he didn’t get sued? he made small changes in the designs. so again, before you run your mouths and start to “son” other people on here, make sure the research is done first. 3000 out.
Comment by big grizzly — March 22, 2008 @ 8:34 pm
Actually Grizzly the Mike logo is a silhouette of Michael Jordan dunking the ball in one of his posters that were used as an advertisement in stores. No originality there.
It would have been different if he pulled what big pun did with the jumpman logo on his album cover, but it was a 500 pound jumpman and he was holding a mic instead of a ball….
Comment by Mike — March 27, 2008 @ 7:02 pm