All of the compalining about a lack of durabuck got me googling

8,513
3,513
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
It seems that the company that held the trademark to Durabuck (The United States Shoe Corporation) held the trademark from 1992 through 1998 when it was cancelled via Section 8 of the US Trademark Act. If they had their trademark cancelled from failure to continue using the term, it seems highly likely that whatever stock Nike had and used up in production of retros in the early 2000s was it. They couldn't go back to actually using Durabuck if they wanted to now since the company that made it doesn't make it anymore.
It seems that if Nike wanted to, they could figure out a way to engineer the material again and file the trademark paperwork to own it themselves, but that's probably a costly endeavor.
 
It seems that the company that held the trademark to Durabuck (The United States Shoe Corporation) held the trademark from 1992 through 1998 when it was cancelled via Section 8 of the US Trademark Act. If they had their trademark cancelled from failure to continue using the term, it seems highly likely that whatever stock Nike had and used up in production of retros in the early 2000s was it. They couldn't go back to actually using Durabuck if they wanted to now since the company that made it doesn't make it anymore.
It seems that if Nike wanted to, they could figure out a way to engineer the material again and file the trademark paperwork to own it themselves, but that's probably a costly endeavor.
 
woww. That's crazy. Nice find. do you have the link to the site you found this info?
 
woww. That's crazy. Nice find. do you have the link to the site you found this info?
 
Mind = Blown
2d1ajag.gif
 
is it a certain type of durabuck that was trademarked or just the name? cuz i think nike never really stop'd using durabuck type in the first place. cool post but lets be real if nike wanted to they could produce or replicate any material they wanted too.
 
Back
Top Bottom