Hi,
Can anyone help me with this. I have an idea for a new clothing brand. I would like to use technical garments such as Nike and Adidas - rather than using blanks. I was planning on buying them wholesale and adding my branding to the garments. I won’t be defacing or removing anything original from the garment. Simply adding my logos, images and slogans to the garments. Is this legal? Will I get sued for this? Obviously the dream is to do a collaboration - but I can’t see that happening until I get any kind of traction with the brand. Thoughts?
Rebranding / Adding Customisation to well known brand
Re: Rebranding / Adding Customisation to well known brand
Hi Speels and welcome to the forum,
I think the usual term for what you propose is pimping.
In theory you would be covered by the doctrine of the exhaustion of rights (also known as the First Sale Doctrine in the USA). However the major brands like Nike and Adidas don't generally approve of the practice and so I think that you can expect a lot of push back from them, by which I mean lots of legal letters with the aim of wearing you down. See, for example this case in the USA between Nike and the artist known as the Shoe Surgeon. However previous attempts by Nike to stop this practice have not been successful due to the First Sale Doctrine. This is a slightly different situation to the Satan Shoe case where Nike alleged that their branding was used on trainers which were not designed or sold by Nike, so techically the 'First Sale' never occurred. Nonetheless it appears that the Satan Shoes were adapted from genuine Nike Air Max 97s.
Adidas has had similar problems with bespoke versions of their products,
The main arguments which manufacturers use to defeat Exhaustion of Rights / First Sale defences are that the modifications amount to material differences in how the product performs after modification and issues over quality control, both of which are, they would claim, damaging to the brand's reputation. Clearly this argument is stronger where the brand loyality to the product is stronger (as is the case with trainers). This tactic has had mixed succcess, and is generally more successful in the American courts than in the EU.
The other legal issue which you need to consider is that of registered Designs. Virtually all products made by companies like Nike and Addidas have their designs registered with the relevant authorities in the key markets (the US Patent Office, the EU IPO and the UK IPO for instance). This adds more protection to the design of the products, although, again the Exhaustion of Rights doctrine can be used to counter a claim of design right infringement, where the underlying product is genuine.
All of that is a long way of saying, your idea is probably legally safe, but it doesn't mean that you won't face a great deal of threatening behaviour from the brand owners. The sort of tactic they are likely to adopt will be to target any marketplace you sell through with takedown notices based on allegations that the goods are fake or unauthorised copies. The only way you can counter this is with expensive legal action to refute their allegations. So be prepared for this kind of harrassment if you decide to go ahead.
I think the usual term for what you propose is pimping.
In theory you would be covered by the doctrine of the exhaustion of rights (also known as the First Sale Doctrine in the USA). However the major brands like Nike and Adidas don't generally approve of the practice and so I think that you can expect a lot of push back from them, by which I mean lots of legal letters with the aim of wearing you down. See, for example this case in the USA between Nike and the artist known as the Shoe Surgeon. However previous attempts by Nike to stop this practice have not been successful due to the First Sale Doctrine. This is a slightly different situation to the Satan Shoe case where Nike alleged that their branding was used on trainers which were not designed or sold by Nike, so techically the 'First Sale' never occurred. Nonetheless it appears that the Satan Shoes were adapted from genuine Nike Air Max 97s.
Adidas has had similar problems with bespoke versions of their products,
The main arguments which manufacturers use to defeat Exhaustion of Rights / First Sale defences are that the modifications amount to material differences in how the product performs after modification and issues over quality control, both of which are, they would claim, damaging to the brand's reputation. Clearly this argument is stronger where the brand loyality to the product is stronger (as is the case with trainers). This tactic has had mixed succcess, and is generally more successful in the American courts than in the EU.
The other legal issue which you need to consider is that of registered Designs. Virtually all products made by companies like Nike and Addidas have their designs registered with the relevant authorities in the key markets (the US Patent Office, the EU IPO and the UK IPO for instance). This adds more protection to the design of the products, although, again the Exhaustion of Rights doctrine can be used to counter a claim of design right infringement, where the underlying product is genuine.
All of that is a long way of saying, your idea is probably legally safe, but it doesn't mean that you won't face a great deal of threatening behaviour from the brand owners. The sort of tactic they are likely to adopt will be to target any marketplace you sell through with takedown notices based on allegations that the goods are fake or unauthorised copies. The only way you can counter this is with expensive legal action to refute their allegations. So be prepared for this kind of harrassment if you decide to go ahead.
Advice or comment provided here is not and does not purport to be legal advice as defined by s.12 of Legal Services Act 2007