Don’t do it: Nike, MSCHF, and the Satan Shoes
How Lil Nas X’s “MONTERO” promotion went to hell in a handbasket
Written by @KateMRedd7 minute read
THE GUIDING QUESTION
Why is everybody talking about Lil Nas X — even more so than usual?
Hint: it’s not just because of his smash single “MONTERO” hitting Number One on the Billboard Hot 100.
THE TEASER
While Lil Nas X is newsworthy in his own right, the rapper’s recent collaboration with art collective MSCHF is generating a different kind of buzz. The Satan Shoes, a follow-up to MSCHF’s 2019 Jesus Shoes, are the center of Nike’s recent lawsuit and settlement.
TLDR; Nike doesn’t think pentagrams and, uh, real human blood are worthy of the swoosh.
MSCHF claims it’s art — but good old-fashioned mischief can’t always escape the legal boundaries of fair use, parody, and trademark infringement.
Specifically because when dollar signs get involved, the situation gets sticky.
THE DEEP DIVE
A news story? About Lil Nas X? Groundbreaking.
As far as trending topics go, this one has layers.
“MONTERO (Call Me By Your Name),” rapper Lil Nas X’s March 26th single and music video, is generating buzz from the Billboard crowd to the Breitbart set. No doubt you’ve heard about the conservative Christian backlash — or that you’ve seen some of the rapper’s tweets about the situation.
Let’s break down the basics.
Lil Nas X is the 21-year-old genre-bending sensation behind 2019’s “Old Town Road.” He’s unapologetically Black and unapologetically gay, breaking as many stereotypes in country music as he does in hip-hop. Last month, he released “MONTERO,” a song about gay sex which is currently sitting in the number one seat on Billboard’s Hot 100.
But, the outrage you’ve heard so much about isn’t really about the song.
If you haven’t seen it yet, I’ll wait here while you watch. Believe me, it’s worth it.
Even the merch for “MONTERO” is something beyond your typical t-shirt. In collaboration with the rapper, Brooklyn-based art collective MSCHF (and the main character in this story) created a completely exclusive new drop:
The Satan Shoes.
Retailing for $1,018, the black-and-red sneakers are emblazoned with pentagrams and embroidered with LUKE 10:18, the Bible verse in which Satan falls from Heaven. But that’s not all — the soles of the shoes contain ink and a drop of human blood, one in each pair. And as far as exclusivity goes, only 666 were made.
You can probably see why some Christians might cry blasphemy. However, they’re not the only ones who are upset. Nike just won a court case blocking MSCHF from shipping the 665 pairs of shoes that were purchased and the one pair remaining for a Twitter giveaway.
But there’s something more interesting to this story than one company being sensitive about their branding.
It’s a story about hypocrisy and a story about when people can stop the creation of art.
For starters, there’s MSCHF.
What started as research for this pitch turned into an absolutely phenomenal rabbit hole for this writer: specifically the minds of the mysterious and clever makers of the Satan Shoes.
For clarity’s sake, Nike is suing MSCHF, not Lil Nas X; he’s just the collaboration name attached to the shoes.
MSCHF is ultra-exclusive, requiring an app download just to see what they’re planning. Their homepage chronicles the history of their “drops” — creations and collaborations that mix art, culture, and comedy seamlessly. You only need to read the statement on the Nike lawsuit that MSCHF posted to the original Satan Shoes page to get a sense of the brand’s ethos. MSCHF pushes boundaries, and now that Nike’s pushing back, they’re not giving up without a fight… or a cheeky t-shirt to raise money for their legal fees.
In fact, the Satan Shoes aren’t a one-off. They’re a sequel to MSCHF’s 2019 “Jesus Shoes” — the most-Googled shoe of 2019.
Also created from modified Nike Air Max 97s, the Jesus Shoes boasted a white and blue colorway, with a sole full of real liquid: water from the Jordan River, where Matthew 14:25 says Jesus walked on water. And, for $1,425, you could too, before they sold out to the likes of Drake.
Now this is important.
Nike didn’t sue MSCHF when they used their sneaker and logo for the Jesus Shoes. It’s the Satan Shoes that set them off.
MSCHF is no stranger to potential trademark infringement.
One of their past drops was №5 Axe, in which customers could buy a bottle of Axe body spray packaged in the iconic Chanel №5 perfume bottle. Currently, though, the site for Axe №5 is listed as Axe No. Censored, with Chanel’s interlocking-C logo covered.
Was there a squabble between Chanel and/or Axe and MSCHF?
Not that we could find… but are you starting to see a pattern here?
Let’s talk legality: specifically, trademarks and parody.
A trademark is any word or symbol used in commerce to identify the goods of a specific brand or seller.
For Nike, this is their signature swoosh.
Trademark infringement occurs when the word or symbol is used by a brand that isn’t the owner in a manner that might be confusing to a consumer. Brands use their trademarks to establish goodwill. When you see the swoosh, you think of well-made shoes, Colin Kaepernick, and “just do it.”
Ideally, for Nike, you don’t think Satan.
The Satan Shoes, designed on Nike Air Max 97s with a reversed swoosh, aren’t exactly transforming the Nike logo… or so Nike argues. From their perspective, that’s confusing to the customer. You can see how even the most tuned-in sneakerheads might think Nike is the producer of the Satan Shoes.
If you’ve ever seen Comedy Central’s “Nathan For You,” you may be able to see how a case like Nike’s and MSCHF’s might turn out.
In season two of comedian Nathan Fielder’s docuseries, in which he gives frankly terrible advice to small business owners for the sake of comedy, he turns a struggling coffee shop into an exact replica of Starbucks… but dumber.
A great article from NYU Law breaks down the legality of Comedy Central’s Nathan Fielder docuseries potential “Dumb Starbucks” infringement case. Though Starbucks didn’t sue, “Dumb Starbucks” was legally pretty airtight.
As a non-infringing parody, “Dumb Starbucks” was both directly and intentionally making fun of Starbucks as a brand. Plus, the trademark infringement was for noncommercial use — technically, “Dumb Starbucks” was an art gallery, not an actual cafe, and their intention wasn’t to make real money. And, as you’ve probably already noticed, it’s hard to confuse “Dumb Starbucks” for a real Starbucks.
Now, MSCHF tried the “art” argument, too, claiming that each pair of Satan Shoes was an individually numbered art piece. Post-lawsuit, they also reiterated the concept behind both the Jesus and Satan Shoes as being a commentary on brand collaborations.
But let’s do the math: at $1,018 a pop, with 665 pairs sold, it stands to reason that MSCHF made at least $676,970 from the Satan Shoes. With that kind of money, MSCHF appears to have more skin in the game than just commentary and artistic merit. Based on fair use, parody and trademark, MSCHF might have been better off if, initially, the Satan Shoes had been explicitly criticizing the brand without making any money.
Just like the message behind “MONTERO” has been overshadowed by the backlash to the music video, it seems like “MONTERO” may have overshadowed MSCHF — legally, for the worse.
WHY THIS STORY IS WORTH IT
Lil Nas X, Montero, the Satan Shoes: so hot right now. At 21 years old, the rapper’s already-viral stardom is poised to keep his haters sad for quite some time to come.
Although this story starts with stripper poles to Hell and lap dances on the devil, it crosses out of the music industry and into conversations about race and sexuality, “cancel culture,” Christianity, and online outrage.
As for the Satan Shoes, keep an eye on MSCHF’s next drops and next moves. While their response so far has been firmly tongue-in-cheek, the court case could have implications for artists, parody-ers, and sneakerheads alike.
WHAT WE DON’T HAVE ANSWERS TO
Keeping an eye on this story, though the court case has been decided, could speak to the evolution of the high-worth world of sneakerhead culture.
And if sneakers aren’t your thing…
OTHER PITCHES
- So much of the conversation around “MONTERO” has been co-opted by outraged conservative Christians, distracting from the heart of the video: Lil Nas X’s experience with Christianity as a young gay person and his desire to flip the script on the pain and fear threatened by those who told him that gay people would go to hell. Who gets to control these narratives when they get out of an artist’s control?
- How often are indie designers like MSCHF modifying big brands like Nike? Will Nike’s legal team start chasing copycats and exclusive sneakers built on their existing shoes? With Satan Shoes buyers losing out not just on the shoes, but on high resale value, diving into the rabbit hole of the sneaker world might be worth it.
PEOPLE WORTH INTERVIEWING
- Lisa Borodkin, formerly on the Starbucks legal team, wrote about “Dumb Starbucks” and trademark infringement for the Guardian. Talk to a trademark lawyer for their take on the Satan Shoes.
- Someone from a publication like Hypebeast can give you an insider look at the world of sneakers, including the Satan Shoes, and help flesh out a story that’s culturally relevant beyond the lifespan of the Nike lawsuit.
WE’LL SEE YOU ON THE WIRE
Want another pitch in time for your next meeting?
Know someone who’d love this pitch?
Publishing this story? See a correction? Got a tip? Tell us and we’ll publish it!
ADDITIONAL SOURCES
- Maker of Lil Nas X ‘Satan shoes’ blocked by Nike insists they are works of art
- Judge blocks Lil Nas X’s ‘Satan Shoes’ from shipping to customers
- Lil Nas X’s ‘Satan Shoes’ trolled some Christians. But ‘Montero’ is about more than that.
- Dumb Starbucks was the perfect crime, but Starbucks was smart to play dumb
- Trademark Law and the Brilliance of “Dumb Starbucks”
- Nike wins halt to sales of Lil Nas X ‘Satan Shoes’
- Do the Christian Thing and Return Your Lil Nas X Satan Shoes, Company Asks
Disclaimer: We love these ideas, but they are not fully fleshed-out stories. These are pitches intended as a starting point for other journalists to investigate further and as such, require more interviewing, analysis, and fact-checking before they can be considered full articles. If you’d like to learn more about our pitch process and what goes into Case By Case (and what doesn’t), please check out our FAQ.
