Will Nike win Satan Shoe lawsuit?

I expect Nike to have little trouble winning its lawsuit against MSCHF, maker of the Satan Shoe, a modified Nike Air Max 97. The footwear was developed in collaboration with the, um, entertainer Lil Nas X, who in his most recent video, as the New York Times deadpans, “gyrates on Satan’s lap.” The entire run of exactly 666 pairs (of course) sold out in less than a minute — at a price point over over $1,000 each.
In addition to the familiar Nike swoosh, the repurposed sneaker is emblazoned with a pentagram, a reference to Luke 10:18, and, visible in the sneaker’s air bubble, a red fluid that contains, among other ingredients, human blood. All of this has led to an internet fury directed not against MSCHF, a small company long known for its “viral stunts,” but against Nike.
The Oregon sportswear behemoth, which neither endorsed nor licensed the shoe, is being threatened with boycotts. This confusion about who’s to blame for the offensive imagery will help Nike make its case for trademark infringement.
Nike will also be aided by something else: the long line of court decisions holding that an accusation that someone is associated with Satan constitutes actionable defamation. Back in the 17th century, a British judge wondered whether the court was required to find that the devil actually exists before ruling on such a claim.
Nobody takes that view anymore.
Consider Procter & Gamble, which has long been dogged by bizarre rumors that its moon-and-stars logo is a Satanic symbol. In 2007, after more than a decade of litigation, the company won a $19 million verdict against four Amway distributors accused of spreading versions of that false tale.
The cases go on and on. Back in 1948, the California Supreme Court held that a defamation suit could proceed on the basis of a church’s public statement that two members had been dismissed due to their association with a former pastor who “is one of Satan’s choicest tools.”
In 2003, the Iowa Supreme Court allowed a defamation suit against the United Methodist Church, after a supervisor sent to investigate the strife at a local congregation concluded that the members had “allowed the spirit of Satan to work in their midst.” A member named in the report brought suit. The church protested that its investigative report was protected under the First Amendment, but the court concluded that linking someone with Satan “may have religious roots but also carries a common, and largely unflattering, secular meaning.”
What’s the unflattering secular meaning? Consider the fictitious trial at the heart of Stephen Vincent Benet’s popular 1936 short story “The Devil and Daniel Webster.”

—Bloomberg