How strong are Nike&#39;s claims in the &quot;Satan Shoes&quot; case?
<p>Lil Nas X and MSCHF appear to have purchased a bunch of Nikes and modified them by changing the color, embroidering them with writing, and adding drops of human blood to the soles. When they marketed them as &quot;<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/28/style/nike-satan-shoes-lil-Nas-x.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Satan Shoes</a>,&quot; <a href="https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nyed.461880/gov.uscourts.nyed.461880.1.0.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Nike sued MSCHF for trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and trademark dilution.</a></p>
<p>I'm sure Nike has spectacular lawyers, so I assume its claims are much stronger than I would have otherwise assumed. While I understand their reluctance to be associated with Satanism or bloody sneakers, I'm having trouble understanding why the buyer of a trademarked product would be unable to modify and resell it.</p>
<p>I assume that if I bought a Ford Mustang and dropped a Toyota Yaris engine into it, it takes away from the central attraction of a Mustang, but does that mean I can no longer sell it? What if I just paint it a shade of red other than what Ford uses? What if I add a pentagram window sticker?</p>
<p>To what extent does the trademark holder have the right to control how buyers modify and sell its products? How do those rights apply to the Satan Shoes case?</p>
<p>EDIT: I'm looking for answers that include citations to relevant case law.</p>

<h2>Very strong</h2>
<p>You can see in the photograph that the Satan’s Shoes have Nike’s trademark “swoosh” clearly visible. A reasonable person could easily be confused that the Satan’s Shoe is a Nike product. That’s the essence of trademark infringement.</p>

united-states trademark