![]() ![]() Specifically, counsel for Drip Creationz asserts that the company’s sale of modified sneakers that it purchased from Nike and/or authorized Nike retailers “amount to a resale by the first purchaser of the original product and is, thus, protected under the first sale doctrine and does not constitute trademark infringement or unfair competition.” This claim ties into a number of the customizer’s thirteen affirmative defenses, including its argument that it is shielded from liability on the basis of fair use, as well as the first sale doctrine. What Drip Creationz does deny is that the “direct approval of Nike is necessary or required for lawful sale of its products,” presumably referring to the modified Nike sneakers. While Drip Creationz acknowledges that it sells the “D1” sneakers that Nike references in its complaint, it neither admits nor denies the Swoosh’s claim the sneakers are counterfeit goods. ![]() In case that is not enough, Nike contends that the copycat footwear also has “crooked proportions, messy stitching, cheap details, and taller than the real Air Force 1 shoes.” In the answer that it filed with a California federal court last week, Drip Creationz makes a few admissions about the nature of its operations, stating, for instance, that it is in the business of “reselling authentic Nike Air Force 1 products purchased from Nike and its authorized distributors and sellers,” and that it also “sells shoes referred to as ‘D1.’” However, the majority of the filing consists of Drip Creationz denying many of the allegations that Nike made in its complaint, including that Drip Creationz “has taken systemic steps in an attempt to falsely associate its infringing ‘customizations’ with Nike,” including by using Nike trademarks “and/or confusingly similar marks on the infringing products and in its advertising.”Īt the heart of Nike’s complaint is its argument that Drip Creationz is selling formerly authentic Nike sneakers, which it “materially alter … in ways Nike has never approved or authorized,” as well as different products that it purports “to be genuine Nike products, but that are, in fact, counterfeits.” Beaverton, Oregon-based Nike alleges that the latter sneakers take the form of “knockoff Air Force 1-style shoes,” which Drip Creationz refers to as its “D1” sneakers, and which bear designs that allegedly infringe upon Nike’s registered trademarks for to its Air Force 1 shoes. Three months after Nike filed suit against Customs by Ilene dba Drip Creationz, the sneaker customizer has denied the bulk of Nike’s claims in a newly-filed answer, and set out a number of affirmative defenses that shed light on arguments that it will dive into down the road. Drip Creationz, the sneaker customizer that was slapped with a trademark infringement and dilution, and counterfeiting lawsuit by Nike this summer for allegedly selling modified sneakers, as well as outright fakes that bear Nike branding, admits that while it has sold customized Nike sneakers without authorization from Nike, it has not engaged in “any alleged bad acts,” despite the sportswear titan’s claims to the contrary. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |