They fucking advertised it as Nike and their press people hashtagged Nike and all sorts of shit. This ain't art. This is a company trying to make a buck off Nikes brand.
While I hate the product, they should have the right to do this free from Nike's interference. They took the original shoes (which they owned), modified them, then chose to sell them. How is this different from buying an arbitrary piece of clothing, tearing it/whatever to modify it, then reselling it? Are you obligated to remove their logo?
Because it affects Nike reputation, clearly. Why not make his own.. why Nike shoes? Why not adidas? Or converse, or Nas shoes?
i always thought ART was a defense against trademark...
Yea but at that point they are not Nikes. So you cant advertise them as such.
this shit was likely orchestrated. nike doesnt have to be on one side of the issue
(post is archived)