custom adaptations of existing products

[GoodTaste]

I don't quite understand the meaning of the phrase "custom adaptations of existing products." Does it mean "adaptations (of existing products) based on the requirements of the customer (here it is Lil Nas X apparently)"? If so, only Nike has had the right to legally do so (I've attached two pics below. One is Nike's existing product Nike Air Max 97s, the other is "Satan Shoes"). And if Nike added the blood in the custom shoes according to the customer's request, Nike is naturally involved with it and can't deny it (see the title of the report - Nike denies involvement with Lil Nas X 'Satan Shoes' containing human blood.) The Satan Shoes has Nike logo there, which should be authorized by Nike anyways.

How should I properly understand the phrase "custom adaptations of existing products"?

====================
Nike denies involvement with Lil Nas X 'Satan Shoes' containing human blood
......................................................
News of the shoes drew outrage over the Palm Sunday weekend; some critics slammed both Lil Nas X and Nike. But Nike was quick to distance itself from the shoes, pointing out that they're custom adaptations of existing products.


"We do not have a relationship with Little Nas X or MSCHF," Nike said in a statement. "Nike did not design or release these shoes and we do not endorse them."

Source: NBC News

Nike Air Max 97s:

Satan Shoes:

 

[jutfrank]

Lil Nas X and MSCHF have collaborated to customise Nike's design. Nike are saying they have, and want, nothing to do with it.

 

[GoodTaste]

Lil Nas X and MSCHF have collaborated to customise Nike's design. Nike are saying they have, and want, nothing to do with it.

Is such customising illegal?* In other words, does such customising constitute plagiarism?

*I understand the word "collaborated" in your reply as "worked illegally with (for this special purpose)". Am I on the right track?

 

[jutfrank]

Is such customising illegal?

Apparently so. It's all there in the article.

 

[probus]

Apparently so. It's all there in the article.

With respect I don't see where the article states it's illegal. Moreover, once you have purchased a product, what you do with it is your business. Having said that, lawyers will argue anything, no matter how absurd, provided they are paid to do so. Only if litigation ensues will we learn for certain how legal or illegal it is.

 

[jutfrank]

With respect I don't see where the article states it's illegal.

Oops, sorry. I hastily misread GoodTaste's comment. I was responding to the question Is such customising legal? I meant to say that it is apparently legal, yes.

Thank you, probus.

 

[Tdol]

Is such customising illegal?* In other words, does such customising constitute plagiarism?

I don't think so- it is simply unauthorised and Nike disapprove of it.

 

[Skrej]

For what it's worth, MSCHF (read: mischief) has pulled similar stunts before. Previously the company injected Nikes with holy water and called them "Jesus Shoes".

Gathering by their name and products, the company obviously tries to capitalize on the whimsical, outlandish or even offensive nature of an idea to sell their products.

Also, according to this very recent BBC article, Nike is now suing them for trademark infringement.