2 black designers getting sued by nike

[Amestafuu (Emeritus)]

Look up John Geiger and Warren Lottas....both white and both sued by Nike for the same thing....

@Dad
"oh no but Jeff staples said"

y'all boys argue over pride. present evidence not opinions.

 

[Luke Cage]

No they are not. Clear difference when you look at them

There is less of a difference between dunks and J's then there is between them and the shoes these two designers made. and yet nike still considers them knockoffs. If those are knockoffs so are dunks. but obviously since its the same company they not gonna sue themselves, just think its a shady workaround to not have to pay mj a percentage as part of his endorsement.

 

[3rdLetter]

Nike has a ton of sneakers that look similar to each other. They’ll slightly change the design so that they will constantly have something new on the shelves

This. Dunks and AJ1's are basically a combination of 3 sneakers Nike had out years prior, AF1s, Terminators, and Legends.

 

[West Coast Avenger]

The dunks came out after the AJ1 debuted, not at the same time. This was clearly meant as a way to capitalize on the popularity of that shoe without having to spend any addtional money on design or development costs, and cash in on the popularity of the aj1's. they literally just removed the jumpman logo and said new shoe.
If changing the logo is enough to be an entirely new creation, then why are they suing these two designers? they have a clearly different logo. So therefore it has nothing to do with nike dunks same way nike dunks have nothing to do with AJ1's right? Thats basically what yall are saying by arguing my point.

Do you not know what Trademark Infringement is??.....logo has nothing to do with it....Nike has a patent on the shoe silhouette....

 

[Amestafuu (Emeritus)]

Thats fine if you think that, basically you're saying since things worked out for both parties in the end nothing is wrong. I understand.
Obviously they are both cool with it, but doesn't change the fact that dunks are knockoff J's and MJ doesn't get paid for them.

that's your opinion not a fact and this is the issue with folks these days. not knowing the difference makes all the difference...

 

[Luke Cage]

Do you not know what Trademark Infringement is??.....logo has nothing to do with it....Nike has a patent on the shoe silhouette....

But you claimed changing the logo makes it an entirely new design. so which is it? You can't argue against my point in one case but argue for it in another entirely identical case.

 

[2 Up 2 Down]

There is less of a difference between dunks and J's then there is between them and the shoes these two designers made. and yet nike still considers them knockoffs. If those are knockoffs so are dunks. but obviously since its the same company they not gonna sue themselves, just think its a shady workaround to not have to pay mj a percentage as part of his endorsement.

How are dunks a knockoff? They were created the same time as the AJ1

 

[Amestafuu (Emeritus)]

Can you name BAPE like the article YOU posted talks about ?

name them for what? i'm naming who got sued. you claim the suits are race related... but you have 2 non black people posted in here with lawsuits and 2 black people.

i'm trying to find any semblance of logic in your bullshyt.

arguing over pride... it's ok to be wrong brothers

just because bape hasn't been sued does not validate your point. i swear you dudes are 3 year olds when it comes to reasoning. please tell me its your pride that still got you on that hill.

 

[Luke Cage]

that's your opinion not a fact and this is the issue with folks these days. not knowing the difference makes all the difference...

lets do a hypothetical.
Lets say Nike only ever released the J's. And reebok instead came out with the dunks. You don't think Nike would sue reebok claiming their dunks were knockoffs of their J's? We both know the answer because thats exactly what they are doing with these two designers.

 

[Luke Cage]

How are dunks a knockoff? They were created the same time as the AJ1

AJ1 was released before the dunks came out. it was deliberately designed to capitalize on the popularity of the aj1s' in case MJ left them for another company after his original deal with nike expired.

 

[2 Up 2 Down]

AJ1 was released before the dunks came out.

They released in the same year. That means they were in development at the same time. And if I’m not mistaken, the Dunks were in development first

 

[West Coast Avenger]

But you claimed changing the logo makes it an entirely new design. so which is it? You can't argue against my point in one case but argue for it in another entirely identical case.

When did I say that???.... ....

 

[Rekkapryde]

whatever bootlegs are accepted Nike definitely getting paid off it

the chinamen making those shoes just used a lightnight bolt instead of a swoosh....and they get paid more for the "bootlegs" which is sad.

 

[Luke Cage]

They released in the same year. That means they were in development at the same time. And if I’m not mistaken, the Dunks were in development first

Of course they were in development at the same time. They're the same shoe
but AJ1's were released several months before the dunks. They just modified the J's and released it as a new shoe.

 

[Amestafuu (Emeritus)]

lets do a hypothetical.
Lets say Nike only ever released the J's. And reebok instead came out with the dunks. You don't think Nike would sue reebok claiming their dunks were knockoffs of their J's? We both know the answer because thats exactly what they are doing with these two designers.

nah brother it's over. you didn't make your first point and you branching off widly and the analogies are terrible. nike and jordan are not separate companies. nike owns all THEIR designs. nike and reebok are separate companies. of course nike would sue reebok for them using nike desings. of course Jordan CAN'T sue nike beause he uses Nike designs.

this shyt IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE