Greek Converse Tennis Shoes
 

I am only creating a new thread because I have pics of all the shoes as well as prices.

http://converse.com/LiveFiles/1/397/5K241_220.jpg

http://converse.com/LiveFiles/1/393/1K239_220.jpg

http://converse.com/LiveFiles/1/396/5K240_220.jpg

http://converse.com/LiveFiles/1/392/1K238_220.jpg

http://converse.com/LiveFiles/1/394/1K236_220.jpg

http://converse.com/LiveFiles/1/395/1K237_220.jpg

http://converse.com/zproductmatrix.a...=1&zsubcatid=2

Converse Basketball - Classic Chuck Taylor All Stars Shoes

Greekpack Weapon (Hi top) $65.00 1911, 1914
Greekpack Weapon (low top) $60.00 1906, 1908, 1911 (omega), 1913


They are available in limited quantities on line...

the ladies ones are niiiiiiiiiice. very cute with jeans.

I love them but I would never wear them! I am just not a sneakers person any more, unless I'm going to the gym (and one would not wear those to the gym.

So while the para lover in me REALLY wants them, I will pass :( .

Please don't buy them
 

The NPHC as a group is considering action against Converse/Nike for these shoes. They tried to get around our licensing rules by not using the symbols--just the colors and the dates. They are trying to make a lot of money off of us without giving our orgs any financial consideration in return.

Re: Please don't buy them
 

I figured something had to be up.

Oh and in case folks are wondering, the Zetas, S G Rhos, and Iotas shoes were no where to be found on the site.

Re: Please don't buy them
 

BOO HISS to Converse/Nike!! :mad: :mad:

The mere fact that they're using the correct date/color combinations (since they're not using names) means that they know exactly who their target customers are going to be. They should at least give a portion of the money made to the NPHC organizations. They should realize that by doing the right thing, it would benefit them greatly (i.e. positive reputation). I don't like when companies try to do shady things in the name of making a profit.

Re: Please don't buy them
 

Thanks, Ladygreek, for the info.

Man, the shopper in me wanted to pick them up...**sigh** I guess I'll pass too.

Question?
 

I am not greek, but I was wondering how they were going to keep people that are not greek from buying the shoes? Are they just going to sell them on greek websites or are they going to actually sell them in the stores? I was just wondering because if they sell them in the store how are they going to know if the people buying are greek or not? You all already said that the NPHC isn't getting any profits from this. So if it's all about the money they won't care who is buying them, and they won't take any precautions to make sure these shoes don't get into the wrong hands. Again, I'm not greek so I apologize if I overstepped my boundaries here, but I was really wondering about that, and wanted to know how you all felt about it.

Re: Question?
 

I believe they will only be sold online and from what I know, there will not be any SCREENING to make sure shoes are only sold to Greek members.

Just an observation, I wonder why they made the Kappa and Phi Beta Sigma ones a little higher for the men, and not the Ques and Alpha's. They all look cool enuf, but I'm not feeling the Alpha ones.....those colors for some reason just don't look good on those sneakers. I think they could have done better with those in some kind of way.

Question?
 

Question to all:

Why would some sort of screening be needed in order to purchase this 'nalia (the tennis shoes) as opposed to other 'nalia (T-shirts, jackets, etc.) that is sold online? :confused:
Just curious to know....... :)

Re: Question?
 

Well, I think it all should be screened. I can see a lot of high schoolers buying these shoes.

What is ironic is that our certified vendors are NOT allowed to sell DST para online. But it is the ones that aren't certified that do it. We can't control them, except to ask folx not to buy from them.

It is one thing to have a small business doing it, but when you start having major corporations doing it, it opens up a whole new can of worms in an open market.

Re: Question?
 

I don't think that they are any different than any other para that anyone can walk in a store and buy EXCEPT here the relation to BGLO's is more subtle and I think makes it even more likely with this than something with Delta Sigma Theta emblazoned across it or Alpha Kappa Alpha clearly written that a non Greek will buy t and sport it. Just a 1913 or an 1908 is very subtle if you are not familiar. IMO.

I do think that it is shady that they are trying to use us as a target audience while subverting our licensing provisions. I think we need to work on spreading the word to each other not to buy these shoes and to write to the company and let them know why, that we have money to spend and we will not spend it with them.

Thanks Ladygreek and Kimmie1913! :)

I can understand how someone who doesn't know about BGLOs would buy them just because of the colors (I guess they think the year on the shoe would be a model number or something :confused: ).

That is STRAIGHT SHADY for them to make these shoes without doing the right thing. (paying for licensing, etc.).

BOO on Nike/Converse! :mad:

Exactly - if it weren't for GC, I never would I have known about the NPHC orgs and I probably would have picked up the AKA shoes thinking "Yay, they're pink!"

They are probably going to make a lot of money from this product too. Bad Business Ethics in effect @Converse/Nike!

An unknowing Delta Zeta may do just that!

______________________________________ dead!!!!!

Isavvydiva can we get thumper in here...we lost one.

May?

I guarantee you it will happen.

Re: Question?
 

I am also not greek. I have seen people who I know are not greek wear an orgnizations para and they looked stupid, because every one knew. That is why I sorta agree with the screening, but then again I purchased a shirt for one of my cousins who is greek. So I think that common sense should be used when people purchase para. Because there is no way in Heck that I would be walking around pretinding that I am someone that I am not.

DANG....
 

I really wish Nike/Converse woulda done the right thing cuz I REALLY want a pair for my down days......:( Oh well..........

Sorors our National Executive Board as well as the leaders of the other Sororities/Fraternities are urging everyone to NOT BUY these shoes. Converse is selling the likenes of Delta with these shoes to gain profit without the consideration of the vending rules or OUR NEED FOR MONETARY SUPPORT with these shoes...

I repeat DO NOT BUY THE SHOES

Me, too. I definitely would have thought the numbers were a model number or just on there too look cool. I actually do think the pink and green ones are pretty cute.

However, I think it is extremely shabby that they're trying to circumvent your licensing rules. I hope your orgs take legal action, if possible. It's definitely needed in this case.

Oh, and please excuse the forum invasion. :)

FYI...
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

African-American Sororities and Fraternities File
Trademark Infringement Suit Against Converse
Suit alleges that Converse gained at the expense of African-American
groups and consumers

Dallas, TX - December 17, 2003 - The Council of Presidents announced today that they have sued sports apparel company Converse, Inc. for trademark infringement and deceptive trade practices.

"We were concerned that Converse, using unfair competition and infringing upon our groups' intellectual property, had deliberately and callously decided to target the members of our organizations for sales of its shoes without obtaining any sort of permission from our groups," said Helen Owens, Chair of the Council of Presidents and national president of Sigma Gamma Rho Sorority, Inc.

The lawsuit, which has been filed in the United District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, maintains that Converse has
been manufacturing, marketing, and selling athletic footwear, called the
GreekPak, to members and supporters of African-American fraternities and sororities and that this conduct constitutes trademark and trade dress infringement, as well as unfair competition and deceptive trade practices. As indicated by Harry Johnson, national president of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc., "the Converse shoes we're looking at contain the identical founding year and organizational colors as our respective organizations and was an obvious attempt by Converse to capitalize on the goodwill our groups have worked so hard to develop. This was no coincidence."

The lawsuit charges that Converse has enriched itself at the expense of the African-American fraternities and sororities and the unsuspecting consumers who believe that Converse has permission from and endorsement by these African-American groups to sell these shoes. The lawsuit seeks damages for past acts of infringement, punitive damages, and requests that Converse be enjoined from continuing to sell these products without permission. Converse was purchased by Nike in September 2003.

"This lawsuit will send the message to large and small companies that our organizations will aggressively protect our rights and will not tolerate
anyone infringing upon these rights without us taking action. If any
person or organization wants the right to market our intellectual property, they must come to us to discuss a license or endorsement agreement. If they don't, they may find themselves in court, said George Grace, national president of Omega Psi Phi Fraternity, Inc. To be fair, competition has to be based on a level playing field - companies must compete on the basis of originality and according to the laws of this country. All we ask is that Converse play by these rules and stop infringing our rights."

The Council of Presidents is comprised of the heads of the nine
predominately African-American fraternities and sororities, which includes Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc., Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc., Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity, Inc., Omega Psi Phi Fraternity, Inc., Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc., Phi Beta Sigma Fraternity, Inc., Zeta Phi Beta Sorority, Inc., Sigma Gamma Rho Sorority, Inc., and Iota Phi Theta Fraternity Inc. The Council of Presidents represents the interests of the hundreds of thousands of its members, who are in fields such as medicine, law, professional sports, bipartisan elective offices, accounting, engineering, aviation, finance and banking, print and broadcast media, entertainment, sales, law enforcement, firefighting, communications, teaching, telecommunications, data processing, human resources, social work, etc.

The Council of Presidents collaborates on matters upon which the National Pan Hellenic Council organizations share a common interest. The nine NPHC member organizations each have hundreds of chapters on college campuses and alumni chapters in cities across the world and are actively involved in programs that enrich the educational and economic lives of African-Americans.

-Intellectual property litigation attorneys Aubrey "Nick" Pittman of Dallas, Texas (214-459-3454) and John S. Kendall of Chicago, Illinois
(312-857-1997) represent the fraternities and sororities in the lawsuit.

Contact:
Helen J. Owens, Chair
Council of Presidents
8800 South Stony Island Avenue
Chicago, IL 60617
773-873-9000

Thanks Sister-Soror CT4 for posting the update.

I can understand where you are coming from, but I do not beleive the Supreme Court if it gets that far is going to give them a judgement from a legal stand point! It could get there if is puched up enough.

You do not Trademark Years or Colors. You Trade mark Designs and Names!

I of course could be very wrong, at it does seem like an advertising gimmick! Not my decision to make!

But the only ones who will come out of this with money is the Lawyers who are handling the case!

While some of your National Officers are upset, who will it really cost, is you the members!

I dont think anyone in their right mind would come out with Purple, Green and Gold Shoes with 1909, The Year LXA was Established!

Yes, there is a difference between Men and Womens shoe designs!:D

Ever wonder why Mens Clothing is different than Womens?:confused: :eek:

I don't understand these statements. The shoes are available in men and women designs--for the NPHC fraternities as well as the sororities.

No offense ladygreek, but better folks than you have tried to understand Tom Earp. I've yet to find anyone that does. Save yourself the headache! LOL

Will do, thanks! :D

What she said. It's damn obvious they're trying to rip off NPHC. I hope you guys get a fat chunk o' cash from them.

I hate to side with Tom Earp but....
 

...he does have a valid point.

I will first say that I truly don't know what the ultimate outcome will be from this case, but since no copyright or trademark infringement has occured, it's going to be rather difficult for the NPHC to prove such in this case.

Unless the respective NPHC years and colors are registered trademarks of the orgs, it's going to be difficult to prove any damages has occured.

Example: The Ford Motor Company has Motorcraft as a registered trademark of their company. If another company uses similar car parts that Ford uses and puts MotorCARE or Motor CAR on their products, no trademark infringement has occured, and thus Ford cannot sue and reasonably expect to win.

Now, if Converse uses the NPHC orgs names, coats of arms, or other registered trademarks on their shoes, that's another story altogether. But I see no indication that such is being used.

I reserve further comment on this case pending upcoming developments.

I do not know if there is truly a legal basis for the lawsuit, but if nothing else I think the fact that 9 orgs representing a huge consumer base are going public with the fact that they are pi**ed with Converse will be enough.

Actually, you are wrong. Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc. has a trademark on the their founding year. Check out their websitehttp://www.alphaphialpha.net/ (view the Licensed Vendors link).

Personally, I think that the more important aspect of the case is the trade dress infringement piece. For those who don't know,

"Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act creates a federal cause of action for unfair competition. This statutory provision prohibits the sale of goods by use of "any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, which -- (A) is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person. . . ." 15 U.S.C. ? 1125(a) (1988)." Article by Timothy P. Ryan, Copyright News. Trade Dress protection extends beyond copyrighted material and covers unregitered words and marks. I think this gets at the heart of what Converse tried to pull- implying that these items were for NPHC members and hoping that we would beleive they were sanctioned as all NPHC para is supposed to be.

Hello All,
Actually, there does seem to be a legal basis for the claim (based upon my limited knowledge from law school, Trademark law class, and my limited assistance of a few attorneys with a few Trademark issues during my summer stints at firms).

Courts have recognized *colors* as enforceable trade dress, when coupled with a product that the court is willing to acknowlege that you have built up enough goodwill/rep, etc. in to make the color a distinctive symbol, so to speak, for the product. For instance, Corning has trade dress in the pink color of their fiberglass product. The courts have recognized that this trade dress in that shade of pink for the fiberglass product belongs to Corning and has awarded Corning damages in court based on it.

In court, the Council would have to prove that they have built up so much rep in the public eye in the color combo that seeing the color combo on the product (b/c all trade dress and trade mark only goes as far as the actual product that you attempt to attach it to) would cause confusion as to the maker/endorser of the product.

Kimmie1913 hit the head on the nail with the other way that the Council could claim: under false advertisement/misappropriation statute of the Lanham Act 43(a). Basically, it's illegally to intentionally use words, marks, etc. to confuse the public into making them think that manufacturer A created or endorses the product when that is not the case. I think that a claim under 43(a) is stronger.

It really seems that there are at least these two meritorious claims that would at least allow them to avoid failure-to-state-a-legal-claim dismissal in federal court.

SummerChild

I clicked on the link and the licensed vendor page and all it said was this:
The following vendors are the only approved & licensed vendors (valid until December 31, 2003) for Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc. Any other vendor selling and/or distributing pariphernilla bearing any of the fraternities registered trademarks & logos should be reported to the Corporate Headquaters at:

It didn't specify specifically what is a registered trademark or logo. Help a nosey sista out! :D

I checked because I was surprised to hear that a year could be tradmarked. I understand how a particular logo containing the year as part of the design could be trademarked, but just the use of a particular year? :confused:

If you look at the bottom of that page you can click on the Word document link and it will show you.

It shows it in the Licensing Packet. Both 1906 and '06 are trademarked. But what caught my eye is the spelling of paraphernalia in the above sentence. Is that a greek spelling or something?