2 black designers getting sued by nike

[Thelonious Napz]

It was bound to happen, I'm surprised it took this long. It's kinda crazy they got those shoes manufactured from alibaba sellers. You can literally buy those shyt's on alibaba for a fraction of the price that they've been selling them for smh.

 

[Will Ross]

Crazy part is the NIke dunks are a rip off design of the jordan 1's. MJ low key could sue to have part of profits from that show included with his jordan brand contract. and Yes jordan 1's came out before Nike Dunks.

Nike most likey is suing only because they know they don't have the money to fight it.
I remember omi saying that was good because they put out shoes before the trademark was filed

 

[Amestafuu (Emeritus)]

Crazy part is the NIke dunks are a rip off design of the jordan 1's. MJ low key could sue to have part of profits from that show included with his jordan brand contract. and Yes jordan 1's came out before Nike Dunks.

no he can't

jordan brand is a nike subsidiary and he is a co-owner. the designs are made by nike employees in their design lab. they share technology as well as design language across brands in the same company.

Peter More designed both shoes and he was a Nike employee.

 

[Luke Cage]

no he can't

jordan brand is a nike subsidiary and he is a co-owner. the designs are made by nike employees in their design lab. they share technology as well as design language across brands.

Just saying i make deal, that i get a percentage of all of these shoes sold, Then you make an identical one to sell where i don't get a percentage? seems shady af.

 

[spencerforhire]

First stole from cable tv, now shoe companies. Omi got some Asian blood in him.

 

[10bandz]

i knew they were gonna come for Kool Kiy eventually

 

[Amestafuu (Emeritus)]

Just saying i make deal, that i get a percentage of all of these shoes sold, Then you make an identical one to sell where i don't get a percentage? seems shady af.

my guy you talking like it's not the same company, there's nothing shady at all.

Peter More designed both shoes and he was a Nike employee.

 

[10bandz]

Crazy part is the NIke dunks are a rip off design of the jordan 1's. MJ low key could sue to have part of the profits from that shoe included with his jordan brand contract. and Yes jordan 1's came out before Nike Dunks. I always thought signing an athelete to an endorsement deal for the sales of a shoe, than selling and identical one that he doesn't see a penny of was kinda shady.

Jordan Brand is owned by Nike

 

[LuuqMaan]

Devlin Carter said Omi was added as a co-defendant to the lawsuit

Didn’t he get done recently for some federal crime?

 

[Luke Cage]

my guy you talking like it's not the same company, there's nothing shady at all.

Peter More designed both shoes and he was a Nike employee.

Jordan Brand is owned by Nike

You guys seem to be missing my point. I know its the same company thats the whole point. MJ licensed his likeness with this company and they found a loophole around having to pay him by selling the same exact shoe without his logo on it.

Its comparable to scarlett johanssen signing a movie deal with disney based on theather sales, then them releasing it on streaming at the same time and not paying her for the streaming revenue.

An argument can made that dunks are only popular because they look like 1's but you won't clowned for wearing knockoff J's since its still officially a nike product. How many of these Dunks customer would've bought J's instead if Dunks weren't availible?

 

[Monoblock]

Crazy part is the NIke dunks are a rip off design of the jordan 1's. MJ low key could sue to have part of the profits from that shoe included with his jordan brand contract. and Yes jordan 1's came out before Nike Dunks. I always thought signing an athelete to an endorsement deal for the sales of a shoe, than selling and identical one that he doesn't see a penny of was kinda shady.

Yo....you serious? Yo do know who owns all that shyt right?

Jordan could sue Nike he said

 

[10bandz]

You guys seem to be missing my point. I know its the same company thats the whole point. MJ licensed his likeness with this company and they found a loophole around having to pay him by selling the same exact shoe without his logo on it.

Its comparable to scarlett johanssen signing a movie deal with disney based on theather sales, then them releasing it on streaming at the same time and not paying her for the streaming revenue.

An argument can made that dunks are only popular because they look like 1's but you won't clowned for wearing knockoff J's since its still officially a nike product. How many of these Dunks customer would've bought J's instead if Dunks weren't availible?

they still sell AJ1s to this day and MJ gets paid.....Nike coming out with Dunks has nothing to do with a loophole to screw MJ over. And dunks popularity is about more than them looking like AJ1's, especially when the modern popularity of dunks mainly comes from the SB's

and your scareltt johanssen comparison is a reach

 

[Luke Cage]

Yo....you serious? Yo do know who owns all that shyt right?

Jordan could sue Nike he said

Why do ya'll keep saying this like its a good counter argument? Disney owned Black Widow and Disney plus as well and yet Scarlett still sued them.

 

[Luke Cage]

they still sell AJ1s to this day and MJ gets paid.....Nike coming out with Dunks has nothing to do with a loophole to screw MJ over.

and your scareltt johanssen comparison is a reach

Yes, but he would get paid more if the dunks which are clearly copys of aj1's were part of his deal. And the scarletr comparision is actually entirely accurate comparison to this situation, The main difference is MJ has no incentive to burn bridges to bring about a lawsuit since he is making so much money regardless. put it like this, if they did this with all his jordan shoes sold knockoff versions outside his deal, you don't think he would be salty?

 

[Amestafuu (Emeritus)]

You guys seem to be missing my point. I know its the same company thats the whole point. MJ licensed his likeness with this company and they found a loophole around having to pay him by selling the same exact shoe without his logo on it.

Its comparable to scarlett johanssen signing a movie deal with disney based on theather sales, then them releasing it on streaming at the same time and not paying her for the streaming revenue.

its not a loophole. you making a simple thing complicated.

no it's not comparable to that at all. Nike never gave up any autonomy and they own the designs. MJ only has a say in things that carry the Jordan name. Nothing at Nike. His designs are by Nike, the tech in the shoes is by Nike, the manufacture is by Nike. They have no requirement to consult him about non Jordan releases. It's not shady or foul. It's standard business. What they did had never been done and it was radical enough for him to be a co-owner. you are putting on today glasses and looking back for fake outrage. No other athlete has ever gotten a Jordan deal to this date.