Popular sneaker maker Nike has started the “licensed NFT” wars by taking an online reseller called StockX to court for trademark infringement or sale of unlicensed nonfungible token (NFT) sneakers.
According to a Reuters report, Nike has filed a lawsuit against the reseller in the New York Federal court demanding an undisclosed amount in damages and a halt of sales on such virtual collectibles. StockX reportedly started selling Nike sneaker NFTs in January and promised buyers they can redeem the real-world version of the sneakers in the near future.
Nike in its 50-page complaint claimed StockX has sold nearly 500 NFT sneakers with the Nike branding which has dented their reputation and legitimacy. The shoemaker brand also alleged the NFT sneakers were being sold at inflated prices with very “murky terms of purchase and ownership.”
StockX is a popular online reseller estimated to be worth $3.8 billion and the NFT sneakers because of which it is facing the lawsuit is still online. The collection is called ‘The Vault’ comprising of 9 premium Nike sneakers and deals with NFTs tied to their real-world asset.
Related: From art to gaming: The biggest NFT trends of 2021
Nike claimed NFTs are a way for brands to interact with their customers, but some of the players in the market are trying to “usurp the goodwill of some of the most famous trademarks in the world and use those trademarks without authorization to market their virtual products and generate ill-gotten profits.” The shoe-maker is set to launch its own NFTs collection later this month in association with recently acquired art studio RTFKT.
NFTs popularity has made it a primary PR and marketing tool for brands and celebrities. However, as with any popular use case in the decentralized world, NFTs have reached a point of exploitation. Apart from Nike, there have been several other lawsuits around NFTs involving big brands and celebrities. Pulp Fiction’s film production company Miramax sued the director of the film Quentin Tarantino for selling NFTs of the movie, calling it copyright infringement.
Comments (No)