Nike Sues Guy Who Ordered Single Pair Of Counterfeit Sneakers Over The Internet

from the nike-picks-up-the-RIAA-strategy dept

Thu, Dec 16th 2010 10:20am — Mike Masnick

Warning: you might not want to ever buy Nike shoes again. If you accidentally buy a counterfeit pair of shoes, Nike might sue you. Via Glyn Moody, we learn that Nike chose to sue a guy who ordered a single pair of trainers online, believing they were legitimate Nike shoes. The shoes were seized at the UK border as counterfeits. Nike could have gone after the actual counterfeiters. Or it could have (perhaps more questionably) gone after some other third parties, such as the retailers who sold the shoes. Instead, it chose option 3 and sued the buyers directly. Most of the suits were settled (or, apparently, ignored).

However, one customer, a Mr. E. Bateman, thought this was ridiculous, and fought it. He pointed out that he simply thought he was buying legitimate Nikes, and it seems rather ridiculous to then be sued for it. The judge noted that, under UK trademark law, the buyer's intent is absolutely meaningless:

"Whether or not the defendant believed the goods were authentic is irrelevant to the question of trade mark infringement. Whether the goods are infringing goods or counterfeit goods is an objective question. The Defendant's state of mind does not matter. Equally the Defendant's state of mind is irrelavant to the question of importation."

In other words, don't ever buy Nike shoes, or you might get sued.

Of course, all this makes you wonder: what the hell was Nike thinking? We've seen how suing customers backfired badly for the RIAA and others, but this goes even beyond that. Here's a case where a guy appeared to believe he had just bought legitimate shoes, and Nike's response is to sue him, take him to court, and then win its lawsuit against him. The judge did point out that he "questioned whether the sledge hammer of these proceedings is necessary in order to crack this nut of this magnitude," and even then Nike pushed forward, claiming that the companies has "no realistic alternative to enforcing their rights this way."

Um. Sure they do: the alternative is not suing their customer. That said, at least the judge did not make Mr. Bateman pay any fine or award to Nike (even though Nike did ask for money), but rather, he has to promise not to infringe in the future, allow the shoes (still held by UK customs) to be destroyed and provide the details of where he bought the shoes. Of course, the only way he can make sure not to infringe in such a manner again is to never buy Nike shoes again, since he has no way of knowing beforehand if they're infringing or not. Nice work Nike.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: sneakers, suing customers, trademark, trainers, uk
Companies: nike

102 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Hulser (profile), 16 Dec 2010 @ 10:06am

Asinine
"Whether or not the defendant believed the goods were authentic is irrelevant to the question of trade mark infringement."

It is? This is completely asinine. The purpose of trademark law is to protect the consumer, so how does it make any sense to sue the consumer? Is the UK trademark law really worded in such a way that it's not about consumer protection or is this yet another case where big corporations have convinced the courts that trademark is really intellectual property?

Nike pushed forward, claiming that the companies has "no realistic alternative to enforcing their rights this way."

This logic is just as foolish at the idea to sue the consumer. The difficulty in enforcing a law should have nothing whatsoever to do with its applicability. "Waaa! Suing the responsible party is too hard! It's easier for us to sue some poor schlub who we think will just roll over for us." Yeah, that's really convincing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2010 @ 10:22am

JUST SUE IT
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2010 @ 10:23am

Are the conditions better in the Nike sweatshop or the counterfeit sweatshop?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gabriel Tane (profile), 16 Dec 2010 @ 10:28am

Re:
can't...hit... 'funny'... enough...(or breathe from lauging)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ofb2632 (profile), 16 Dec 2010 @ 10:31am

Re:
AAWWEEE i was going to say that!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2010 @ 10:37am

Re:
Crap I don't get it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gabriel Tane (profile), 16 Dec 2010 @ 10:38am

but but but
Arcara v. Cloud Books clearly shows that his defense was invalid. LOLz!!!1! I Win!!!! [/dripping sarcasm]

Seriously, I'm glad the judge applied common sense and helped the guy not get screwed on legal technicalities. I wonder if we can get him to come over and judge in America... we need a good dose of common sense.

I can't wait to see the fallout on this one... isn't Nike already on shaky ground from bad actions in the past?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2010 @ 10:57am

Re: Re:
Nike's True Mark.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2010 @ 10:58am

Don't EVER buy Nike again.
Good advice.
If I was their competitor, I would be thrilled at this. Get the guy to do a commercial.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2010 @ 10:58am

Re: but but but
If by shaky ground you mean record increasing revenue and profit every year, then yes. The poplace has spoken, they like their Nike marketing so much they are willing to pay for it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
rabbit wise (profile), 16 Dec 2010 @ 10:58am

Re: but but but
Is there going to be fallout? Right now, the only source I found easily was this TD article and I still had to search for it. In order to get Mike's source article, I had to search "Nike, UK Border Agency". I'm thinking not a lot of people are randomly searching that particular word set.

If people don't know, then there isn't any fallout.

Sad but true.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rob, 16 Dec 2010 @ 10:59am

Where do you get good deals?
I just want to know where he got the good deal on the Nike Sneakers?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 16 Dec 2010 @ 10:59am

Re: Re:
"Crap I don't get it."

The old Nike ad slogan was ...

Just Do It!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
pringerX (profile), 16 Dec 2010 @ 11:03am

Re: Asinine
What I find astounding is that the buyer's state of mind is irrelevant. Although, I would like someone to enlighten me on this question- if you inadvertently use counterfeit money because it was given to you as change by someone else, are you responsible or at fault? I seem to recall this tends to result in some sort of mitigating circumstances, or nothing at all. Or is this because civil law has lower standards than criminal law?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
yogi, 16 Dec 2010 @ 11:03am

Re:
That's awesome. your future as a copywriter is assured.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Qritiqal (profile), 16 Dec 2010 @ 11:03am

Re:
Hell, give the guy a lifetime supply of your own brand AND get him to do a commercial.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2010 @ 11:03am

Re: Re: Re:
Thanks for telling me! Now I can't stop laughing!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2010 @ 11:04am

Re: Where do you get good deals?
That's the question Nike, their lawyers, and the judge should've asked.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Doe, 16 Dec 2010 @ 11:05am

Re:
Reebok should send the guy a pair of shoes for free and make an issue of it. ;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2010 @ 11:08am

Re:
I guarantee they own both.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dearmarcus (profile), 16 Dec 2010 @ 11:08am

Crazy! I once bought a fake pair of nike air force 1's from a seller on ebay. I complained to ebay, Pay-Pal and Nike and they did nothing. I guess I was lucky.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Johnny, 16 Dec 2010 @ 11:16am

The 4th option
They forgot the 4th option: sue the post office. After all they are making it possible for these forged goods to reach their destination.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Johnny, 16 Dec 2010 @ 11:23am

Real Nikes
Real Nikes are made buy Real Kids in the Third World.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 16 Dec 2010 @ 11:32am

Re:
The lesson here is don't complain about being sold fake goods, less you get sued.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2010 @ 11:39am

Re: Re:
Perhaps that is the real reason they have no alternative... shutting down their own counterfeiting operations would be counterproductive...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btr1701 (profile), 16 Dec 2010 @ 11:55am

Re: Re: Asinine
> Although, I would like someone to enlighten me
> on this question- if you inadvertently use
> counterfeit money because it was given to you
> as change by someone else, are you responsible
> or at fault?

As a federal agent whose particular jurisdiction is the enforcement of counterfeit currency crimes, let me reassure you that you are not legally liable for passing counterfeit that you had no reasonable way of knowing was counterfeit. There is an intent element ("knowingly") included in the statute.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2010 @ 11:58am

Re: The 4th option
Sue the interblogs.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RobShaver (profile), 16 Dec 2010 @ 11:58am

My email to Nike
Dear Nike,

I just read that a guy, Mr. E. Bateman, ordered what he thought were a legitimate pair of Nike trainers on-line. As it turned out they were counterfeit. Nike sued him and won. Is this true?

If this is true then I can never buy your shoes again because I may not know if they are counterfeit or not. You must realize that is the only way I can protect myself from litigious companies such as Nike appears to be.

Sincerely,

Rob:-]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Raven, 16 Dec 2010 @ 12:01pm

Sadly companies start to believe that the right over rides reason and do dumbass things like suing for no good reason. I worked with a company that operated a medical non-profit that had a logo that was VAGUELY similar to that of a major movie producer. The logo had the same single letter as a major part of the logo but beyond that they were completely different. This producer sued the non profit (who served over 600,000 patients every year all over the world) and won on copywrite infringement. The non-profit was forced to pay $2.56 MILLION for sharing a letter. There was no effort on the part of the producer to offer an out of court settlement or the opportunity to change the logo. The lawyers filed and sued and got paid. If I were the producer I might actually try to tie myself closer to the company and perhaps generate some good will for myself, instead he has soured my taste of his already questionable behavior. In these days it is so easy to go to court and win because you have bigger lawyers that people often do. It is truly sad.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
GeneralEmergency (profile), 16 Dec 2010 @ 12:08pm

Nike is apparently getting an earfull about this...
@ http://help-us.nike.com/app/ask

"We are currently receiving higher than normal email volume. Our response could take up to 72 hours. For faster service please contact us via phone (1-800-806-6453) or chat."

I know my little missive is burning a hole in their inbox.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
pringerX (profile), 16 Dec 2010 @ 12:17pm

Re: Re: Re: Asinine
btr1701:
As a federal agent whose particular jurisdiction is the enforcement of counterfeit currency crimes, let me reassure you that you are not legally liable for passing counterfeit that you had no reasonable way of knowing was counterfeit. There is an intent element ("knowingly") included in the statute.

Thanks for the info! That is approximately in line with my initial thoughts.

However, in the case here, I wonder if it was presumably due to an oversight that the law lacks an intent element, or due to fundamental differences in criminal versus civil law. Anyone else care to chime in?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chosen Reject, 16 Dec 2010 @ 12:50pm

Re: Nike is apparently getting an earfull about this...
Don't wait. Talk to someone right now: http://help-us.nike.com/app/chat/chat_launch
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Just Screw It!, 16 Dec 2010 @ 12:52pm

Punish the victim
What particular statute is Mr. Bateman supposed to have violated? It doesn't say in the article - never mind, I see it's "trademark infringement", stated more clearly in the linked article.
Well, now we all know what brand to avoid when ordering online. Thanks for the warning, Nike!
Hopefully, if their inspired campaign succeeds, counterfeiting will eventually stop after Nike becomes so unpopular that nobody wants or dares to order them any more.
As for Mr. Bateman, I guess they are lucky his first name isn't Patrick, or heads might roll (to the tune of "Hip To Be Square" of course...).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
interval (profile), 16 Dec 2010 @ 12:52pm

Note to self; never buy Nike again. Ever.

Now, in other moral lessons, another reason not to buy shoes over the internet. Not a good one, but still, add it to the list. I don't buy clothing, watches, or expensive sunglasses over the interweebs. There's just no reason to. The only stuff I order on the net is stuff I can't get here in town. Buying name labels over the net is just asking for trouble. Asian art? Sure, I do that. I can't get it here, so I go to a few web sites I've done business with before.

A pair of levis from China? You're looking to get robbed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2010 @ 12:53pm

Re: Re: Re: Asinine
Please explain how a federal agency 9ie US government) has anything to do with what happens in the UK government.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2010 @ 12:58pm

Re: The 4th option
Don't just sue - eliminate the post office, UPS, Fed Ex, etc. They allow these counterfeit goods to travel. If it weren't for them we wouldn't have the counterfeit goods problem.

Also eliminate the printing press, phones, and television. Electricity should also be banned, because these IP owners have to do SOMETHING to protect their rights, and electrons have been involved in every single counterfeiting and infringement case.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jay (profile), 16 Dec 2010 @ 1:01pm

Good job Nike
I will never purchase your product again.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Comboman (profile), 16 Dec 2010 @ 1:09pm

What the hell?
If the shoes were confiscated at the border, he didn't even get a chance to see the shoes he bought before he was sued. Even if he were able to tell the difference, he was never given the chance. I wonder how much Nike paid the judge?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
lonny, 16 Dec 2010 @ 1:13pm

stupid
Nke back off. Being stupid on such a frivilous case could cost you millions. Whoever decided to go on with this case should be fired. Just the news story could cost alot in sales.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2010 @ 1:21pm

You guys are retarded. The guy bought the shoes from an unauthorized website. If the price is to good to be true then it is! The same thing can be said about music artists and the music industry. Remember the people who were being sued because of illegal downloading? Long story short he messed up and bitched about it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
iamtheky (profile), 16 Dec 2010 @ 1:21pm

nothing of substance from chat
W: Hi, my name is Wayne. How may I help you?
W: Hello Ky
Ky: Is there a press release available for the Bateman Case?
Ky: just trying to gain all the facts before i boycott your products
Ky: all apologies if this is the incorrect medium, none of the others are functional
W: I am sorry but at this time, we have no comments on the issue. I am more than happy to take your feedback and get it to our Legal team though
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PorkBellyFutures, 16 Dec 2010 @ 1:21pm

Nike has a point
Nike's point is too quickly dismissed here by the author and the commenters.

This is the nature of trademark law: if you don't actively defend your trademark, you lose it. A lot of companies have lost trademarks because they were being too lax about protecting how it was used (e.g. aspirin and cellophane, once trademarked, became indefensible after falling into generic usage).

So this is the state we have today. If a trade mark or trade name is of value to a company, they will sue anyone perceived to be violating it, lest a future court case is argued over the times they *didn't* sue offenders, weakening their position.

You could argue that a case this minor would not really put their trademark at risk, but Nike's trademarks are worth (quite literally) billions of dollars. Clearly they perceive that letting minor infractions go is not worth the risk. And while they're not clearly right, they're not clearly wrong, either.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2010 @ 1:22pm

You guys are retarded. The guy bought the shoes from an unauthorized website. If the price is to good to be true then it is! The same thing can be said about music artists and the music industry. Remember the people who were being sued because of illegal downloading? Long story short he messed up and bitched about it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not an electronic Rodent, 16 Dec 2010 @ 1:26pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Asinine
Anyone else care to chime in?
This seems to be in UK jurisdiction and we've always had the very very dumb "ignorance is no defense in the eyes of the law" idea
Here for example as far as I'm aware (not a policeman or lawyer) you can indeed be charged with passing bad currency for unknowingly using counterfeit notes or "receiving stolen goods" for buying something "dodgy" knowing or not or fall foul of "forced prostitution" laws if that happens to be your bag. And so on ("ringer" cars also I think)
To my knowledge in all cases it's incumbent on the "consumer" to ensure it;s legit - hey noone said the US had the monopoly on dumbass laws.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PorkBellyFutures, 16 Dec 2010 @ 1:26pm

Re:
@Raven: Keep in mind that copyright and trademark are very different things. You can sit on a copyright for decades and ignore it, then start suing people left and right for retroactive proceeds if your copyright was violated in the meantime.

Trademarks are far more sensitive. If you don't actively defend one, then it is lost.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gabriel Tane (profile), 16 Dec 2010 @ 1:29pm

Re: Nike has a point
I was waiting to see if this one came up.

To show defense of a trademark, the company must take action. But nothing says that action has to come in the form of suing the customer... the least-culpable in this whole thing (despite what AC has to say about it).

All they had to do is file a complaint against the site it was purchased from and -boom- they're defending. It doesn't have to be a successful action that results in a 'win' to qualify as defense.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Robert, 16 Dec 2010 @ 1:31pm

not buying nike
so what is the problem. i for one will not be buying nike !!! what are you going to do?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris Rhodes (profile), 16 Dec 2010 @ 1:33pm

Re: Nike has a point
This is the nature of trademark law: if you don't actively defend your trademark, you lose it.

Oh god, not this "I heard someone mention my company name in public once so I HAD to sue them to keep my trademark!" BS again. It crops up so often and it's so bogus. Nothing requires Nike to file frivolous lawsuits against innocent people to avoid losing their trademark. That's just asinine and I wish people would stop propagating it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
tim, 16 Dec 2010 @ 1:37pm

So who is Glyn Moody
Okay techdirt do you know Glym Moody and is he a trusted source or just something pulled from Twitter? I have yet to see or hear that this has been confirmed from any other source such as hmmm... the court. It may be fun to get everyone's undies in a bunch, but how sure are we this is a true story?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
iamtheky (profile), 16 Dec 2010 @ 1:38pm

Dont forget to boycott subsidiaries
-Cole Haan
-Hurley International
-Umbro
-Converse

No more Chucks, brutal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2010 @ 1:39pm

Re:
What was the unauthorized website?

Was the price actually lower?
I mean if they were a good enough quality counterfeit they could have been sold for a close to normal price and not have been suspect. And even if they were really low, it could have just been advertised as being "on sale" or some bs like that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
iamtheky (profile), 16 Dec 2010 @ 1:41pm

summary judgment for those who cant be bothered to traverse two links deep.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWPCC/2010/10.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris Rhodes (profile), 16 Dec 2010 @ 1:41pm

Re:
Can we change the "Anonymous Coward" tag to "Anonymous Troll"?

unauthorized website

What is an "unauthorized" website? Any website not affiliated with Nike directly? Amazon? Is eBay "authorized"?

If the price is to good to be true then it is!

How good does it have to be to be too good to be true? Tell you what: You give me data on the "too good to be true" price point for anything and everything sold over the internet, so I can make sure I don't get a frivolous lawsuit dumped on me (If you want, you can be topical and start with a list of all Nike shoe models and their respective price points). Thanks, anon troll!

Long story short he messed up and bitched about it.

Long story short, you either forgot your sarcasm tags or you're an idiot of epic proportions. I won't say publicly which one I'd put money on.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nastybutler77 (profile), 16 Dec 2010 @ 1:49pm

Re: So who is Glyn Moody
TAM? Is that you? Have you finally decided to start posting your tripe again?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2010 @ 1:54pm

An unauthorized website is a website that Nike has not allowed to sell their products. If you see a pair of jordan's for $10 and you think your getting a deal that's your mistake.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gabriel Tane (profile), 16 Dec 2010 @ 1:56pm

Re:
Did I miss something? Does eBay need Nike's permission for me to sell my 'new-in-box' sneakers? Amazon too? Interesting.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2010 @ 2:01pm

That exactly what an unauthorized website is. A site that is not affilitated or has permision to sell nike items.
Ebay if you didnt know is notorious for selling fake items. UK law states that it does not matter the mans state of mind when he purchased the shoe.
Counterfit shoes are the same as illegal downloading. They are both fake versions and you do not have the permission of the company.
Fuck Moody and fuck who he rolls with. And if youre down with Moody Fuck you too!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2010 @ 2:01pm

That exactly what an unauthorized website is. A site that is not affilitated or has permision to sell nike items.
Ebay if you didnt know is notorious for selling fake items. UK law states that it does not matter the mans state of mind when he purchased the shoe.
Counterfit shoes are the same as illegal downloading. They are both fake versions and you do not have the permission of the company.
Fuck Moody and fuck who he rolls with. And if youre down with Moody Fuck you too!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Joe Downer, 16 Dec 2010 @ 2:02pm

At this rate?
You may be more right than wrong. First Sale is under attack, so you might not only need Nike's permission to sell the shoes, but they'll take 10% off the top.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris Rhodes (profile), 16 Dec 2010 @ 2:07pm

Re:
An unauthorized website is a website that Nike has not allowed to sell their products

Which is who? Or did you mean that you have to get permission from Nike before you can sell their stuff? If so, where did you hear such nonsense?

If you see a pair of jordan's for $10

Did he actually buy them for $10? What if he bought them for $100 and they were counterfeit? Can he still be sued? What if the seller claimed they were used? Is $10 still too little for a used pair of Nikes?

Are you still an idiot who spouts off ignorant garbage on the internet? Wait, I know the answer to that last one . . .
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris Rhodes (profile), 16 Dec 2010 @ 2:10pm

Re:
Who let you out of your room? You'd better get back there before they make you take extra meds tonight!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Frawg (profile), 16 Dec 2010 @ 2:21pm

For those that want to know..
if you follow this link and read the article, then you will know the website in question.
On top of that, if you go to Internic and do a Whois search on that website, it shows good old GoDaddy (which I happen to love) as the Internic-Registered owner of the domain...however..
Go to Godaddy and do a whois from them reveals the person(s) that actually hold the domain listing from them.

Now, what else can I do for you today? :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lawrence D�Oliveiro, 16 Dec 2010 @ 2:32pm

Re: If the price is to good to be true then it is!
So what would be considered a reasonable price range for Nike goods, below which the alarm bells should go off?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
pringerX (profile), 16 Dec 2010 @ 2:51pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Asinine
Very good point, I missed that the entire thing is going down in the UK. In which case, US law is not pertinent to British law, but it is still worthwhile to examine how things might have played out in the US. Thanks for pointing out my error!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jeremy7600 (profile), 16 Dec 2010 @ 3:09pm

Re: Re:
I'm pretty sure its not a requirement to defend trademarks, I think that has been pointed out on this site before. Its not part of the law. They are simply advised to do so as it is their best chance to protect them. (Paraphrased from another site during a google search)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Duncan Yoyo, 16 Dec 2010 @ 3:29pm

ALL NIKE SHOES ARE COUNTERFEIT
There is one simple assumption that one must make after reading this story- ALL Nike shoes are counterfeit. It is simple and will keep you out of court.

I used to love Rebok but their arches fell and the really high high tops are hard to find in stores.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JT, 16 Dec 2010 @ 4:02pm

Re: Re: but but but
Unfortunately, even if people do know, there still won't be any fallout, aside from the microscopic percentage of the population that actually gives a shit what type of company they are giving their money to. In this country most people have set a very low price tag on their convictions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Paul`, 16 Dec 2010 @ 4:34pm

.... How does that make any sense whatsoever? The whole reason for trade mark laws isn't to protect a companies bottom line but to protect consumers from being swindled into buying counterfeit goods.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
GeneralEmergency (profile), 16 Dec 2010 @ 4:59pm

Yep...Off the Meds again.
You can tell when they start stuttering.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 16 Dec 2010 @ 5:30pm

Re: Re: Nike is apparently getting an earfull about this...
As long as right now is Monday - Sunday: 06:00 AM - 04:00 PM PST
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2010 @ 6:28pm

I got a non-answer via e-mail as well.

Here it is:

I understand your concerns.

We do not have any information about this issue, but I would be happy to share your feedback with the rest of our team.

Best Regards,
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ltlw0lf (profile), 16 Dec 2010 @ 6:47pm

Re:
You guys are retarded. The guy bought the shoes from an unauthorized website. If the price is to good to be true then it is!

I need your help...I bought Asics from a website that looks like a reputable website (Amazon.com), and I paid the same price I would for a pair of Asics at other websites. Can you tell me whether I bought the real ones or not? I mean, all the websites sure look the same, and they all seem to have a similar price. And most of them say something to the effect that they are authorized dealers of Asics...how am I to know that they just didn't slap the "authorized dealer" symbol on their site and charge me the same price for knock-off Asics?

Also, since you obviously seem to be more intelligent than the rest of us, can you also tell me whether I should trust Amazon.com and Apple iTunes to be authorized websites for music and movies? I really cannot tell, since they tend to look a lot like all the other unauthorized websites.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Vibius, 16 Dec 2010 @ 7:05pm

Re: Asinine
Since when did any of our laws truly protect the consumer. Corporations rule.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not an electronic Rodent, 17 Dec 2010 @ 1:16am

New business opportunity?
Thinking about this and the fabulous UK law that doesn't take intent or circumstance into account I think I see a new business model for a protection racket: Write to a bunch of teens and young adults with a copy of the judgement and a note that says "Send �10 to this address or I'll send you a pair of Nike... and you'll never know when they'll come for you." Millionaire's row here I come.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Christopher (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 1:53am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Asinine
Rodent hits the nail on the head. The 'intent' behind something doing something illegal is very very very rarely taken into account in Great Britain because their laws are written in asinine ways.

Thankfully, in the United States, in civil law at least, intent IS taken into account.... if you buy something illegal without knowing it was illegal (even if it appears to be a 'too good to be true' thing), you are not held responsible.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not an electronic Rodent, 17 Dec 2010 @ 2:48am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Asinine
The 'intent' behind something doing something illegal is very very very rarely taken into account in Great Britain because their laws are written in asinine ways
In some cases the idea sort of makes sense - should someone really get away with murder (or manslaughter at least) if their defense is "I was too dumb to know that the gun I was waving around was loaded"? - but it's not a like a "stolen good" comes with a label on that says "I'm stolen", even if it's postcode marked should it really be incumbent on you to check out a (non existant) stolen goods registry or track down the phone number for the postcode and ring to check when you buy something second hand? And lots of "knockoffs" are as good if not better than the original - hell there's probably a good chance they're made by the same chinese 8 year old working his second shift in the factory down the road from the Nike one.

Oh and to answer someone else's trollish point, I do indeed own a pair of Nike trainers that were bought entirely legally for $15 and another that were bought also entirely legally for �20.
The "standard" price for Nike trainers being currently around �60-�80 for the cheapest in shops in England, as previously asked, exactly what price is "too good to be true" for each shoe in their line please?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 4:24am

Re: Nike has a point
"This is the nature of trademark law: if you don't actively defend your trademark, you lose it."

Indeed. Which is why the question being asked is this: why are they not going after the people who violated their copyrights and trademarks, rather than an innocent bystander? How is buying a pair of counterfeit shoes more in violation of those laws than producing, advertising and selling them?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Paul Keating, 17 Dec 2010 @ 4:42am

Where is the Use in Commerce
I cannot understand how a consumer who purchased the product could be liable in any manner. Trademarks afford protection as against infringement. The act of infringement is in manufacturing or selling a product using the mark owned by another. Here the consumer was BUYING a product for his own use.

This makes me believe that the underlying case was not based upon trademark infringement but on a separate law that prohibited the importation of infringing goods. I assume that the consumer purchased the product from someone outside of the UK and had it shipped to him. Who was the actual importer?

Not that I have ever been a Nike fan but I know that I now will never purchase their product.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gabriel Tane (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 5:38am

Re:
mmm... fresh can of troll-food here...

"That exactly what an unauthorized website is. A site that is not affilitated or has permision to sell nike items.
Ebay if you didnt know is notorious for selling fake items."
Again, show me where every website who makes available product has to have permission to do so. If I buy stuff in bulk, it's mine... I can resell it if I want.

And let's get something straight: Ebay does not sell counterfiet goods... they don't sell anything... users on Ebay may sometimes sell counterfeit goods. Huge difference.

"Counterfit shoes are the same as illegal downloading."
Wrong! but thanks for playing. Counterfeit is trademark infringement, illegal download is copyright infringment.

"Fuck Moody and fuck who he rolls with. And if youre down with Moody Fuck you too!!!"
Thanks for joining us here on Antique Troll-Show. And here, ladies and gentleman, we see this wonderful example of a troll-post has been finished with an ad-hominim attack. It's rare to see one in such clear and shining condition. It's a real treasure and I'm glad you brought this out... if this opinion went to auction, I'd say - conservatively - it'd be worth about ~thinks a second~ a sack of shit. Maybe two!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not an electronic Rodent, 17 Dec 2010 @ 5:58am

Re: Where is the Use in Commerce
I cannot understand how a consumer who purchased the product could be liable in any manner.
That's probably because you are labouring under the hoplessly idealistic assumption that Trademark is based on the premise of protecting the consumer from being duped by "counterfeit goods" instead of it being another stick for any company with enough money to use to do the corporate equivalent of "demanding money with menaces".

Just guessing :-)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PorkBellyFutures, 17 Dec 2010 @ 6:28am

Re: Re: Nike has a point
It's not about a requirement, it's about measuring risk. The more you let go trademark infringement, the more likely it becomes that you will lose a judgment in the future against somebody who is more substantially infringing. If you are a lawyer who works for Nike, you call this erring on the side of safety.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PorkBellyFutures, 17 Dec 2010 @ 6:32am

Re: Re: Nike has a point
Another point almost nobody on this thread is recognizing is that he wasn't sued for buying the goods, he was sued for importing them. If this had been a local purchase rather than from a foreign website he apparently would have been fine. The law prevents the importation of trademark-infringing goods, so Nike might have been setting a tricky precedent in declining to go after importers -- this might come back to bite them if they later sued a commercial importer of counterfeit goods.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2010 @ 8:01am

Nike
I live in Oregon and that SFB's owner is a sheister mofo and isn't worth spit. I quit buying those damn overpriced chinese made pos years ago and thank god my kids never jumped on the pt gear fashion wear. I still see moron kids in my pos town wear em like there everyday wear,and they look like fckn dumb asses just like the parents who use their kids to hawk their monatary status by buying such crap.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Vic, 17 Dec 2010 @ 9:08am

They could sue me naked
I've lived in China. They, Nike and friends, could sue me naked. Which brings up the shan zhai idea that some of Nike's suppliers might not be completely straight forward. It's possible that Nike could be sued because a supplier swapped in non-Nike stuff in Nike shoes. Eg Nike's logic might be extended to 'hot' non-Nike shoelaces that somebody faked and sold to a supplier.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
GeneralEmergency (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 9:40am

Re: Nike is apparently getting an earfull about this...
Got my response. Apparently Nike is employing the "Sgt. Shultz" PR strategy:

From Nike: (Jennifer) - 12/16/2010 03:32 PM
Hi,

I understand your concerns.

We do not have any information about this issue, but I would be happy to share your feedback with the rest of our team.

Best Regards,

Jennifer
Nike

PR to English translation: "I know noth--ing!"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 11:01am

Re: nothing of substance from chat
I got a tad more info:

Jeffery: Hi, my name is Jeffery. How may I help you?
Church Tucker: Hey, I've heard that you guys are suing people who inadvertently buy counterfeit Nikes. Is this true?
Jeffery: We do not have any information on this.
Church Tucker: There's a guy named Bateman in the UK who ordered a pair of what he thought were genuine Nikes, and was sued over it. I can send you a link.
Jeffery: That is ok. I am unable to shed any light on this, even if I had a link, everything I know would be what you know, based on that link.
Church Tucker: Yeah, but you're Nike. You don't know what you're doing?
Jeffery: I am going to be support for Nike.com as far as orders, products, etc.
Church Tucker: OK, so whom do I talk to in order to make sure I'm not going to be sued if the Nikes I purchase turn out to not be genuine?
Jeffery: I would send an email to corporate. That way they can advise you correctly on this issue. Let me grab you that contact information.
Church Tucker: K
Church Tucker: Do you have a contact in Legal?
Jeffery: I am going to have the information for our corporate team directly. They are going to be the ones to advise from here.

1-800-344-6453 is the number.
Jeffery: http://help-us.nike.com/app/ask/session/L3NpZC9hUjRmUExoaw%3D%3D is the email link.
Church Tucker: Thanks, Jeffery. Do pass along that I'm worried about buying Nikes at this point.
Jeffery: I would be more than happy to submit that feedback for you.
Church Tucker: Take care.
Jeffery: You too!
Jeffery has disconnected.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
kezza, 17 Dec 2010 @ 4:23pm

naughty nike
while looking for an email address to advise nike that i would never touch a product of theirs again (and advise all i know to do the same) i came across this article. now who would have thought......

http://www.oxfam.org.au/explore/workers-rights/nike
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 7:16pm

Re: Re: nothing of substance from chat
Incidentally, if you try the above email link, you currently get:

"We are currently receiving higher than normal email volume. Our response could take up to 72 hours. For faster service please contact us via phone (1-800-806-6453) or chat."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
alternatives(), 18 Dec 2010 @ 12:38am

Re:
Counterfit shoes are the same as illegal downloading.

When once makes a copy of software - the person/place you got the copy from still has what you copied.

In the case of shoes, if I have the shoes, the person/place I got them from no longer has that pair of shoes.

you do not have the permission of the company.

Yes master! We'd be do noting to displease you master!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2010 @ 1:15am

No question this makes Nike look bad.
If you look at the court's judgment however, and do a bit of digging, you see that Nike was represented by a Mr. Mark Elmslie, who "heads up the contentious IP team at Hewitsons LLP in Cambridge, England".

Now seeing that Nike corporate team is experienced, and has a history of having successfully navigated worse public relations issues than this one, it is hard to imagine that a Nike executive examined the facts and said, "Yeah, I think its a great idea to go after this Bateman guy!"

Much more likely is that the Nike is guilty of failing to pay close attention to what the hired help in the UK (Hewitsons) has been up to.

Looking back at the court documents, we see that Nike received a summary judgment in their favor, but the only relief the judge granted Nike was the right to destroy that single pair of shoes, and to extract a promise from Mr. Bateman that he would never do it again. No financial penalty was imposed on Mr. Bateman.

Essentially, for their trouble, Nike was awarded a cheap pair of counterfeit shoes .

One may reasonably suspect that Mr. Elmslie got paid his usual hourly fee however.
Mr. Mark Elmslie has coauthored a book on intellectual property, and has written many articles on the subject, so perhaps Mr. Elmslie would be willing to publish his explanation of how the pursuit of Mr. Bateman furthered Nike's intellectual property strategy. And since he would be representing Nike, no doubt he would be able to use this time to add to his billable hours.
In addition, I would also be curious to know if Mr. Elmslie has ever vetted his ideas about IP enforcement with the marketing and accounting departments of the corporate clients he represents to ensure that his strategies produce the desired financial gains.

In case it is not convenient for him to write here, these and other questions may be addressed to Mr. Elmslie at markelmslie@hewitsons.com
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Philly Bob (profile), 18 Dec 2010 @ 8:20am

Re: Re: Asinine
If you use counterfeit money.... YES, you are responsible and can and will be arrested and charged. At least here in the US.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jeffro Troll, 19 Dec 2010 @ 8:35am

Comment 86
That one Jeff Guy from Nike on Comment 86 sounds sexy. That is my type of man.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2010 @ 4:40pm

I will never buy a Nike Product again. Under any circumstances.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2010 @ 7:39pm

Anonymous Coward is a beevis fan and his team got clown-stomped AGAIN by the Ducks. Of course he hates Nike.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 20 Dec 2010 @ 10:43am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Asinine
In some cases the idea sort of makes sense - should someone really get away with murder (or manslaughter at least) if their defense is "I was too dumb to know that the gun I was waving around was loaded"?

You can't just say "I didn't know" and get off. You have to convince a judge or jury that it was reasonable for you not to know. If they judge that a reasonable person would have known that the gun was or might have been loaded, you're still on the hook.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2010 @ 10:40am

Re: Asinine
We appreciate your concern regarding customers who have purchased counterfeit Nike products. We value our customers.

We want to reassure you it is not our policy or intention to take legal action against customers who unknowingly buy counterfeit product for their own use. We work hard to stop the flow of counterfeit goods, to protect both the integrity of our brand and our consumers. If customs authorities seize counterfeit product, we will work within local law to have the product destroyed. In some countries, that can be done without the consent of the purchaser. In other countries, the consent of the purchaser -- or failing that, a court order -- is required. We resort to getting a court order only if the customer refuses to allow the product to be destroyed.

The article you refer to does omit some important information relevant to this particular case including the amount of counterfeit footwear the consumer had, as well as his refusal to abandon the goods. The consumer subsequently had a second shipment intercepted by customs containing additional pairs of counterfeit footwear.
We feel strongly that catching and destroying counterfeit product is the right thing to do. We recommend that everyone purchase Nike product from a trusted retailer or website. That is the best assurance that the product is genuine. Please visit www.nikestore.com to find a listing of legitimate retailers near you.

Again, thank you for your time.

Best Regards,

Jennifer
Nike
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anon, 27 Dec 2010 @ 8:54pm

Thinking about this a little bit I can kind of see why it would be beneficial for Nike to have pressed ahead with the case. The fallout as mentioned is extremely limited due to hardly anybody knowing about it in the first place, and as mentioned previously if people have been won over by the marketing and ignore the sweatshops and labour conditions of workers then I don't think a single person getting sued is any reason to prevent them from buying genuine Nike merchandise. What this does do however is instil some fear inside those who are not only actively selling counterfeit goods, but also buying them. Previously people may have thought that as long as they are not the ones selling the goods they are in the clear, and although that may be the case most the time this may prevent those would-be counterfeit buyers from going ahead with their purchase. If Nike can prevent a few of these sales from going ahead, where the buyer knowingly purchases counterfeits (let's be honest in a lot of cases it is quite obvious) then they have dented the counterfeiting business by a small amount and perhaps benefited their own business. Now I realise this point may contradict with what I've said previously, in terms of exposure of this case it isn't exactly a main headline, but even if it was the fallout would be so minimal and the gains more enticing for Nike to go ahead with the case.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Jan 2011 @ 1:24am

Re: Re: Asinine
So, wait a minute, the Nike PR Rep is saying that the actual court documents omit information about the case? What?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ike, 7 Jan 2011 @ 12:51pm

he has to promise not to infringe in the future

How ironic that he must pledge his intent not to infringe when intent is irrelevant.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Common Sense, 25 Jan 2011 @ 8:34am

Inconvenient Fact
What I find hilarious is the writer of this somehow failed to make the connection that this was not a Nike customer. If it WERE a Nike customer he would have been buying Nike's. Instead, he decided to save a few bucks and use a counterfeit website to do his shopping. I guess there's always a price for cutting corners.

Lessons I learned from this article...

1.) Don't buy bloggers uninformed BS.
2.) If you want to buy from a company, buy from the company itself or a reputable retail outlet instead of a shady knock-off website.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
officer Dibbles, 5 Jun 2015 @ 6:03am

Nike is 100% CHAV sweatshop manufactured tacky Shite,why anyone would contemplate buying their vile crap is beyond me
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Whitefiver, 26 Sep 2015 @ 2:53am

Re: Re: Asinine
Well done Jennifer from Nike for clearing up the facts..what you really wanted to say was the scumbag knew they were fake and maybe already had a customer to sell them on to .He had ordered more knowing they too were fake.He is a lowlife who should buy from a trusted retailer at all times enuf said.
[ link to this | view in thread ]