Nike‘s newest authorized motion exhibits it desires to be recognized for its Swoosh and never for any hyperlinks with Lucifer.

On, Monday, the sneaker big filed a lawsuit in opposition to Brooklyn inventive studio MSCHF for its immediately notorious “Satan Shoes.”

The $1,018 sneakers, designed in collaboration with the Grammy-winning performer Lil Nas X, retool Nike Air Max 97s, including, amongst different issues, a pentagram pendant to the entrance, a reference to the Bible verse Luke 10: 18 on the higher and—most notoriously—a drop of human blood combined with crimson ink within the sole.

When the shoe was first unveiled days in the past, pundits and politicians lashed out at Nike after mistakenly assuming the footwear model was concerned with the product. Though information studies rapidly quoted Nike saying it didn’t design nor endorse the footwear, misconceptions proliferated and reverberated across the internet.

Monday’s lawsuit, filed within the Eastern District Court of New York, seeks “to clear the confusion and dilution in the marketplace by setting the record straight,” Nike mentioned. The unauthorized Satan Shoes, it alleges, “are likely to cause confusion and dilution and create an erroneous association between MSCHF’s products and Nike.”

Lil Nas X teamed up with MSCHF to release the Satan Shoe

The lawsuit asserts “evidence of significant confusion and dilution” already exists, “including calls to boycott Nike in response to the launch of MSCHF’s Satan Shoes based on the mistaken belief that Nike has authorized or approved this product.”

Though MSCHF’s inventory of Satan Shoes offered out in lower than a minute, the lawsuit requests that the court docket “immediately and permanently stop MSCHF from fulfilling all orders for its unauthorized Satan Shoes.” Even after posting on Twitter and referencing the Nike lawsuit, Lil Nas X indicated that he nonetheless plans to offer away the final, 666th pair of the Satan Shoes on Thursday.

The Grammy-winning rapper, who has turn into a central determine within the controversy, was not named within the lawsuit besides when known as “a rap artist who apparently collaborated with MSCHF on the Satan Shoes.” The footwear arrived days after the discharge of his newest single “Montero (Call Me By Your Name),” which sees the “Old Town Road” hitmaker go to the depths of hell and provides a devil-looking determine—presumably Satan—a lap dance.

The go well with locations a particular deal with the inclusion of Nike’s Swoosh emblem on the offending shoe, asserting that it’s as much as Nike, not third events like MSCHF, to resolve what merchandise function its emblem. The Satan Shoe made no adjustment to Air Max 97’s emblem placement, retaining its placement on the higher and tongue.

Fara Sunderji, a companion at worldwide legislation agency Dorsey & Whitney’s New York workplace with a background in trademark, copyright, clearance, prosecution, upkeep, enforcement and litigation, described Nike’s Swoosh as “probably one of the most recognizable non-word trademarks in the world.”

“You see it and you automatically think of Nike as the source of the good on which it appears,” Sunderji mentioned. “Nike’s case here is pretty simple to understand: MSCHF is selling Nike Air Max 97’s that have been modified in a way in which Nike does not approve. People see these Satan Shoes and think they come from Nike and some people don’t like that. Nike therefore claims that the release of these Satan Shoes is harming its valuable brand.”

Sunderji mentioned she believes MSCHF will possible argue it’s protected beneath what’s referred to as the First Sale Doctrine, a concept that enables third events to resell trademarked items. However, she added, that doctrine is restricted to the sale of “genuine goods.”

“The doctrine is based on the premise that consumers are not being deceived because they are receiving what they have bargained for, the trademarked good,” Sunderji continued. “Under Second Circuit case law, goods are not genuine if they do not conform to the brand owner’s quality control standards.”

Nike additionally asserts that until stopped, MSCHF’s Satan Shoes will “continue to cause confusion in the marketplace, including but not limited to initial interest confusion, post-sale confusion, confusion in the secondary sneakers markets, and dilution by blurring and tarnishment.”

MSCHF’s Satan Shoes don’t symbolize the corporate’s first foray into footwear. In reality, they’re not even the primary time it has offered revamped Nike Air Max 97s. Back in 2019, MSCHF launched what it referred to as the “Jesus Shoe.” Like the Satan Shoe, it made a number of changes, attaching a crucifix to the entrance laces, injecting “holy water” within the sole and inserting a religious-themed sockliner. They too stored the Nike emblem unchanged.

Originally offered for $1,425, the Jesus Shoes quickly landed on resale websites, with costs listed as excessive as $4,000 on StockX, in accordance with CBS News. It seems StockX not too long ago eliminated its itemizing for the Satan Shoes’ holier predecessor. When looking out Google for the product, an advert nonetheless seems displaying it listed at $1,750 on StockX. Clicking on the hyperlink, nevertheless, now simply results in an error web page.

Assuming Nike didn’t beforehand sue MSCHF over its Jesus Shoe—inventive director Kevin Wiesner informed The New York Times final 12 months it “would’ve been rad” to obtain a public disavowal from Nike or the Vatican—Sunderji mentioned the Brooklyn model might argue Nike’s failure to protest prior to now “acts as a consent to the Satan Shoe on a theory of acquiescence, waiver or estoppel.” Those theories, she famous, are complicated and tough to show.

“Given the known facts, MSCHF has an uphill battle on all fronts,” she continued. “The law does not require that trademark owners go after each and every infringement to maintain their rights. Such a rule would be cost prohibitive.”

MSCHF didn’t instantly reply to a request for remark.