For all those that don't know what Mike or Mike23 is, they are a streetwear brand that has been around for a little over 2 years now. Scott Nelson created Mike23 with the vision of paying homage to his beloved brand, Nike, as well as their key icon, Michael Jordan. On February 13, 2008, Nike filed a cease & desist letter to Mike23 requiring them to remove all Mike23 products from the marketplace. In many cases, Mike23 would abide by the ruling, but there are discrepancies on why such a lengthy delay on serving the C & D considering the long existence of the brand. To view the full article head over to Murketing.
In my opinion, this is just another case and point about the big companies taking out the smaller brands. Mike23 if anything, is paying their respect while increasing the popularity of the Nike/Jordan Brand. Nike is worried about consumers mistaking Mike23 as Nike products, but that wouldn't be the case considering Mike23 is only sold in specific boutique stores were the consumers know what Mike23 is already about.
I personally am not a Mike23 fan, but I can easily understand their frustration. We here at Bomb$hell are kind of on that same path, and if we stick to what has got us here, creative integrity is something we will never have to worry about. In conclusion, Fuck you C & D's letters, and Nike, you guys break my heart.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Mike23: Cease & Desist
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
dam thats messed up. if anyone should sue mike23 it should be either jordan himself or tinker hatfield since mike23 is based off of the elephant print from the 3s. seriously nike, how much more money do yall need? let the non-corporate companies do their thing man!
Streetwear, street culture and artists have always re-interpreted iconic logos and pop culture images to connect to people. (i.e. Andy Warhol) In their eyes they are ‘re-appropriating’ these images for their subculture. It has gone on and will continue to, they will draw out emotional response and debate about originality and legality.
I may be ‘dating’ myself here, but this reminds me of a situation back in 1992-3, when SSUR put out his ‘awidas’ t-shirt. He took the adidas fleur logo added two leaves making it look like a marijuana leaf. This was also at the time when GFS (Gerb, Futura and Stash) came out with their “Phillies Blunt” tees, which I believe they later granted them a license to use the logo for a fee instead of a long drawn out legal battle because the shirts generated such a buzz for the brand. (citation needed – lol)
It was different case with SSUR, the adidas legal team not only served him with a cease and desist, but with fines based on profits from the sales of the shirt. They went so far as to hitting the retailers (like Union and 555-Soul) with the same penalty.
The c & d stated that they did not want the brand affiliated with drug culture, which is funny since two years later they produce hemp footwear and this year are releasing a ‘shelltoe’ in tobacco color with a “Philies Blunt-looking” logo on the tongue. Corporate hypocrisy!
The point I want to address is why did Nike wait so long to address this situation with Mike 23. We have to understand that most corporate giant legal teams are so far removed from sneaker/street culture and even their own product departments that one notion could be that they didn’t even know Mike 23 existed until recently. Another thing is, even if Scott was flowing product to Mike Parker or Gemo Wong and they loved it, it has nothing to do with legal department. I'm sure there were meetings discussing the Mike23 once it did get to legal and the PR ramifications that will come from this, but you have to throw rhyme or reason out of the window when it comes to legal.
I mean look, Nike sues Mike 23, Mike23 sueing New Era for the crackle print, which was used by Jordan...
To the last clown....MIKE23 is not suing New Era!!! Scott is not interested in suing anyone!!! Too many scumbags in the world suing people....
Yea, this is really stupid.
Post a Comment