Why hasnt Nike Sued Bape?

[mecks]

Originally Posted by Nawth21

??

"Update: Matt Mason, author of The Pirate's Dilemma, writing in The Economist,
cites the case of a Japanese design company, "A Bathing Ape" (Bape) which remixed ("pirated") Nike's shoes. But rather than sue, Nike bought a stake in Bape and launched its own remixes, earning new revenues by catering to a niche market it had overlooked. Thanks to Will Lion on Flickr."

From:

http://onthecommons.org/content.php?id=2282

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH.

that makes sense, so instead of making them stop, they bought them out so they can get profit. damn, thats smart as hell.

 

[mecks]

Originally Posted by NuMba1KiCkrocka

Bapes aren't hurting Nike anymore the sales between the two are no longer even competitive prolly another reason Nike decided to not sue. At one point in time though Bape was killling Nike, and I remember that same summer Nike released the world cup AF1's which had the crazy loud colors and patent leather...

they were shook

have you read about how Nike basicy merked the company MIKE 23 Inc. ? and it was a small company. theyjust had some better design concepts than nike, and boom nike hit them with a C and D

 

[DownByLaw]

Originally Posted by MECKS

Originally Posted by Nawth21

??

"Update: Matt Mason, author of The Pirate's Dilemma, writing in The Economist,
cites the case of a Japanese design company, "A Bathing Ape" (Bape) which remixed ("pirated") Nike's shoes. But rather than sue, Nike bought a stake in Bape and launched its own remixes, earning new revenues by catering to a niche market it had overlooked. Thanks to Will Lion on Flickr."

From:

http://onthecommons.org/content.php?id=2282

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH.

that makes sense, so instead of making them stop, they bought them out so they can get profit. damn, thats smart as hell.

Best believe that was the only route Nike could take (if even true) because their case wasn't gonna win in a courtroom. There are too many loopholes in thecopywrite laws.

 

[solewoman]

Originally Posted by Lazy B

Originally Posted by SoleWoman

maybe because they knew those overpriced fruity colored shoes were only a fad. AF1's are a classic and will never be a fad.

and in that case...prada needs to sue fila

Fad where? America maybe but Bape is still going strong in Japan.

shoes too?


coo. my mistake

 

[budahbro]

i dunno if this is true but i was watching a roscoe umali interview where he was talking about his new shoe line which pretty much took the air force 1sdesign, he was talking about how they're was a loophole with that shoe like they never patented the rights to it or somthing along those lines which is whyyou see so many companies which use that same template for their shoes. Ima look it up on yewwtube see if i can find it.

 

[mecks]

Originally Posted by FIRST B0RN

Originally Posted by MECKS

Originally Posted by Nawth21

??

"Update: Matt Mason, author of The Pirate's Dilemma, writing in The Economist,
cites the case of a Japanese design company, "A Bathing Ape" (Bape) which remixed ("pirated") Nike's shoes. But rather than sue, Nike bought a stake in Bape and launched its own remixes, earning new revenues by catering to a niche market it had overlooked. Thanks to Will Lion on Flickr."

From:

http://onthecommons.org/content.php?id=2282

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH.

that makes sense, so instead of making them stop, they bought them out so they can get profit. damn, thats smart as hell.

Best believe that was the only route Nike could take (if even true) because their case wasn't gonna win in a courtroom. There are too many loopholes in the copywrite laws.

dude, i just showed you LV vs. New Balance + Nike vs. Mike 23 Inc.

what more proof do you need that if this went to court, nike would def. have a case

also another example:

anascape vs. nintendo

Lufkin, TX: Anascape Ltd. has been awarded $21 million in an intellectual property lawsuit against Nintendo. The well-known video game maker has lost the $21 million lawsuit filed by Anascape, Ltd., a small Texas-based company.

The lawsuit alleged that Nintendo's designs for certain Wii, WaveBird and GameCube controllers infringed on copyrights held by the Texas video game developer. In a U.S. District Court jury decision, Nintendo was found guilty of intellectual property law violation.

Kyoto, Japan based Nintendo is the world's largest manufacturer of handheld video games. Last month the company projected that it expects to sell 25 million Wii consoles in 2008 alone. US retailers sold 721 000 Wii consoles in March and the game system is sold out at some stores, according to market researcher NPD Group.

Brad Armstrong, the founder of Anascape asserted that Nintendo used his patented invention in the development of both the Wii and GameCube gaming systems. According to Armstrong, the invention in question had to do with ways of designing game controllers. The jury in the intellectual property case against Nintendo found that 12 patents filed by Anascape were violated by the video game giant. The patents filed by Anascape had descriptive names, unmistakably linked to technologies employed by Nintendo in its popular and successful systems. These names include Remote Controller with Analog Button," "3D Controller with Vibration," and "Game Controller with Analog Pressure Sensor.

http://www.lawyersandsett...e-controller-patent.html









another example: procter & gamble vs. Folgers

they literally sued over the container ..

ii think i proved my point

Procter & Gamble is famous for its household brands, such as Pampers, Crest and Bounty. But here at the Law Blog, P&G is best-known for vigilantly protecting its intellectual property. Yesterday the company further burnished that reputation by suing Kraft Foods in federal court in San Francisco, charging that a new plastic container for Kraft's Maxwell House coffee infringes on patents for its own Folgers container. Here's a story from Advertising Age.
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/...y-coffee-container-wars/

 

[thetrapezeswinger]

Y'all are stupid. Patents would expire after 20 years back then (17 years now). That's why Bape could copy the basic design of the AF1. Please notetrademarks and patents are two completely different things.

 

[dgk3188]

Originally Posted by bluedeniro

i stand by my theory that nike makes their variants along with their actually product to cause confusion when they drop +@!+@! quality kicks like the 09 space jams for example them things is for walking only but they supposed to be for hooping even tho no know hoops in heat anymore

i ran out of breath in my mind reading that

 

[calikix88]

It really doesn't matter what kind of legal team nike can put together; if there is a loophole or there was no design patent then the case would be prettyopen and shut.

 

[mecks]

Originally Posted by TheTrapezeSwinger

Y'all are stupid. Patents would expire after 20 years back then (17 years now). That's why Bape could copy the basic design of the AF1. Please note trademarks and patents are two completely different things.

i think you win.

 

[rfx45]

Originally Posted by budahbro

i dunno if this is true but i was watching a roscoe umali interview where he was talking about his new shoe line which pretty much took the air force 1s design, he was talking about how they're was a loophole with that shoe like they never patented the rights to it or somthing along those lines which is why you see so many companies which use that same template for their shoes. Ima look it up on yewwtube see if i can find it.

I was going to this thread to say the same thing. Nike either patented the design but their rights had expired or they never did and that is why countless ofother shoes out there resemble the AF1 design, not just Bape. AF1 has been around for what, 2 decades now?

I read somewhere here that Gourmet stopped making Air Jordan look-a-likes because they were pursued by Nike/JB but eventually other companies will be able tocome out with AJ look-a-likes because the rights to it doesn't last forever in the legal world.

 

[Fong$tarr]

I thought also as long as there is like 10 subtle difference in the shoes, you can pretty much do a close rendition of another shoe. And that 10 differentthings can be really small like just the specific measurements of certain parts of the shoe.

Like check out this swagger jack:

Supra:

Levis:

 

[mecks]

since were comparing levis now,
mine as well put these out there
levi's

chucks:

levis:

Vans:

 

[DownByLaw]

Originally Posted by MECKS

Originally Posted by TheTrapezeSwinger

Y'all are stupid. Patents would expire after 20 years back then (17 years now). That's why Bape could copy the basic design of the AF1. Please note trademarks and patents are two completely different things.

i think you win.

Does that answer your question op?

@ the fact you kept posting othercompanies lawsuits like Nike didn't already know.

 

[11wordisbond]

This is a question I've also wanted to know the answer to.

 

[HEATHEN]

Originally Posted by FIRST B0RN

SneakerHeathen wrote:

---

Narrow minded? Really?

You don't know what you're talking about bro. As far as my "legal" knowledge, do you really want to test me? You're a fool if you think Nike can't roll over on BAPE.

I don't know what I am talking about? Answer me this then, why hasn't Nike sued them? I am more than certain you posses absolutely no copywrite knowledge, because if you did then you would known the answer to the question. You sound real juvenille, an individual who has no "real-world" experience with your whole "Nike would roll over Bape". Of course Nike is a lot larger and profitable than a company like Bape, but if they had a case against them, one that they actually could win, it would have happened years ago.




Or perhaps they don't feel as if their share of the market is being affected by BAPE. BAPE caters to a certain niche, Nike caters to everyone. Sure thereis a tiny bit of overlap, but for the most part I believe Nike doesn't really care about BAPE.


You don't know the answer to the question, you think you do but you're just taking a shot in the dark just like everyone else here. You're thejuvenile who got bent out of shape because I disagreed with you. You HAVE to be right? Fine be right, just know that your "right" is all in yourhead.

P.S. Your explanation wasn't even valid. In fact someone else pointed out the reason why Nike can't pursue a case, not you. Get off your high horsefella. Stay in school kid.

 

[redman]

Originally Posted by SneakerHeathen

Originally Posted by FIRST B0RN

SneakerHeathen wrote:

---

Narrow minded? Really?

You don't know what you're talking about bro. As far as my "legal" knowledge, do you really want to test me? You're a fool if you think
Nike can't roll over on BAPE.

I don't know what I am talking about? Answer me this then, why hasn't Nike sued them? I am more than certain you posses absolutely no
copywrite knowledge, because if you did then you would known the answer to the question. You sound real juvenille, an individual who has no
"real-world" experience with your whole "Nike would roll over Bape". Of course Nike is a lot larger and profitable than a company like
Bape, but if they had a case against them, one that they actually could win, it would have happened years ago.

Or perhaps they don't feel as if their share of the market is being affected by BAPE. BAPE caters to a certain niche, Nike caters to everyone. Sure there is a tiny bit of overlap, but for the most part I believe Nike doesn't really care about BAPE.


You don't know the answer to the question, you think you do but you're just taking a shot in the dark just like everyone else here. You're the juvenile who got bent out of shape because I disagreed with you. You HAVE to be right? Fine be right, just know that your "right" is all in your head.

P.S. Your explanation wasn't even valid. In fact someone else pointed out the reason why Nike can't pursue a case, not you. Get off your high horse fella. Stay in school kid.




Maybe he should stay out of school because school is what made him look dumb. You posted a few examples of why Nike would have a case.

 

[limitedretroog]

Originally Posted by SneakerHeathen

Originally Posted by FIRST B0RN

From what I have read, there is a very large gray area in copywright laws regarding product likeness. Since Bape only ripped off the likeness in shape and not
an actual logo rip off, it would be difficult to win in court, which is the only reason Nike hasn't sued them.

You're telling me a behemoth like Nike wouldn't find a way to obliterate BAPE in a court of law?

...


Doubt that.

Size of a company has nothing to do with winning a legal case.

 

[limitedretroog]

Originally Posted by SneakerHeathen

Originally Posted by FIRST B0RN

From what I have read, there is a very large gray area in copywright laws regarding product likeness. Since Bape only ripped off the likeness in shape and not
an actual logo rip off, it would be difficult to win in court, which is the only reason Nike hasn't sued them.

You're telling me a behemoth like Nike wouldn't find a way to obliterate BAPE in a court of law?

...


Doubt that.

Size of a company has nothing to do with winning a legal case.

 

[HEATHEN]

Originally Posted by LimitedRetroOG

Originally Posted by SneakerHeathen

Originally Posted by FIRST B0RN

From what I have read, there is a very large gray area in copywright laws regarding product likeness. Since Bape only ripped off the likeness in shape and not
an actual logo rip off, it would be difficult to win in court, which is the only reason Nike hasn't sued them.

You're telling me a behemoth like Nike wouldn't find a way to obliterate BAPE in a court of law?

...


Doubt that.

Size of a company has nothing to do with winning a legal case.

Obviously because I used the word "behemoth" Iwas specifically referring to Nike's "size" and not Nike's financial ability to hire the best legal team around.


Right?

 

[heyson]

bape was doing nike a favor too. a lot of people who didn't know any better probably bought air force 1s because they confused the two, or just simplycouldn't afford the price of bapes so they stuck with the cheaper air force 1.

 

[HEATHEN]

Originally Posted by heyson

bape was doing nike a favor too. a lot of people who didn't know any better probably bought air force 1s because they confused the two, or just simply couldn't afford the price of bapes so they stuck with the cheaper air force 1.

 

[mateen cleaves]

LV got sued?