Talk:Supreme (brand)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2019 and 10 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Insert.clout.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2020 and 7 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): DetongChe.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Please take a look

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Palace_Skateboards please help edit this similar brands page. Nignaco (talk) 03:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Dead citation

The first reference is not available any more. It should be deleted Junh2 (talk) 22:38, 24 April 2018 (UTC)Junh2

Speedy deletion

Supreme is a real, successful clothing brand out of NYC, London

I couldnt find it in wikipedia. added it to disambig page.

I dont know what their revenue is, but it must be millions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bot337 (talk • contribs) 22 February 2011

I think I have added enough references to show notability. Chzz  ►  13:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Chzz (point taken: independent references) 336 (talk) 17:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2017

ETerrorist (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Supreme Wiki

Yes, the article is neutral and states facts about the brand Supreme and how it came to be, what it constitutes, etc. In addition, the information comes from sources which promote Supreme as a brand but also share a neutral, unbiased point of view.

Vincentleone (talk) 22:17, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2017

Kylefranchize (talk) 01:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Need to edit a wiki page for my compsci class. I'm a fan of the brand and interested in it, Supreme looked like it could use some more info or maybe pictures. Just wanna get in and do some edits nothing crazy.

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. @Kylefranchize: Since the page is protected, you cannot directly edit the page. You can only propose specific changes here, citing your sources, and have other editors make the changes for you. —C.Fred (talk) 01:36, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2017

Kylefranchize (talk) 03:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I would just want to add more photos of their biggest or maybe most unique releases and go into deeper description of collabs. Also maybe give a year by year outline of releases if i have time.

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 06:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Supreme

Supreme is a skateboard clothing brand established in New York in 1994. Supreme was originally founded by James Jebbia. The brand is mostly known for their red box logo its unique font. Supreme produces clothing and all kinds of accessories and rare collectible items which resell for huge amounts. Many of this brand's clothing pieces are bought for their retail prices and later sold for more beacuse of their rarity and lack of availability. Supreme became a huge part of today's streetwear especially beacuse of their collaborations with other well known brands such as Vans, Nike, Levi's, Playboy, The North Face, Hanes, Playboy, Levi's, Timberland, Comme des Garçons, Stone Island, Undercover and so on. The first Supreme store was opened on Lafayette Street in downtown Manhattan. The second store was later on opened Los Angeles in 2004. First ever Supreme store abroad of US was opened Tokyo (Harajuku, Daikanyama & Shibuya). Supreme also has their stores in Paris, London, Nagoya, Osaka, and Fukuoka. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samz2 (talk • contribs) 12:12, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2018

Slomka12 (talk) 20:00, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I want to be able to edit.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. qwerty6811 :-) Chat Ping me 20:57, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2018

Change infobox "Net Income" to "Valuation". The source that was cited for the infobox information says the recent stock purchase imputes a $1bn value, not that they had $1bn net income. Hugo Pakula (talk) 21:45, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done - Thank you, you are correct and I have made the requested change. - Dmezh (talk) 06:50, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Article evaluation

Hello, I recently evaluated this article for class and I am also thinking about editing this as a final project. here are my notes for improvement.

• More Photos
• More depth regarding business side of SUPREME
• Update on Stores Opening plans since there isn't many stores and the brand is scarce.

insert.cloutInsert.clout (talk) 17:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2019

More specifically, Tyler the Creator is seen to be the most associated with the brand, He has had a clip that was a couple of seconds long but was in the screen credits in the skate video 'Cherry' https://www.highsnobiety.com/p/chance-the-rapper-supreme-study/ Tyresehasabrain (talk) 08:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 09:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

edit request

USing this article for my college project and i need the ability to edit it please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insert.clout (talk • contribs) 16:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. NiciVampireHeart 15:50, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

@Insert.clout: Addendum: I note you have more than 10 edits now, since this request was made. Since your account is two months old, and you have the required number of edits, you should be able to edit the article. NiciVampireHeart 15:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Multiple false statements about counterfeit goods

I work for Supreme, the subject of the article. Supreme is a clothing and skateboarding brand. Multiple false and deceptive statements have been added to this Wikipedia article, probably by counterfeiters, to deceive readers into buying counterfeit "Supreme"-branded goods. I request independent editors review the following proposals for corrections and updates - I am making these requests on Talk, as required by Wikipedia policy, and will not directly edit the article.

1. Rename the section “Lawsuits” as “Trademarks”

Explanation: This section is about trademark usage, not all of which is related to lawsuits. Nor does the section contain any content about lawsuits unrelated to trademarks. “Trademarks” is therefore more accurate as a title.

2. In the section “Lawsuit” (to be renamed “Trademarks”), please add as the new first sentence of the first paragraph:

Supreme has registered 251 trademarks in 106 jurisdictions, including North America, Europe and Asia. The brand is one of the most counterfeited in the world, leading to extensive legal actions.

Explanation: this sets the context for the trademark issues which follow in the section. As you can see from the citations, the subject of Supreme’s trademarks and trademark battles has attracted substantial press attention.

Since the Women’s Wear Daily story is behind a paywall, here is the relevant passage for the first citation:

Supreme can benefit from its own hipness around the world with 251 trademark registrations in 106 jurisdictions, including the U.S., Italy, Spain, Britain, France, Japan, China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, Australia, Russia, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates, according to one tally.

The salient language supporting the reference to counterfeits from the CNN.com story is:

Supreme is now one of the most counterfeited brands in the world and its fakes are among the most searched for.

3. In the section “Lawsuit” (to be renamed “Trademarks”). Please insert as the new second sentence, following the new first sentence:

In November 2019, an appellate court of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) found that Supreme’s brand is distinct and eligible for an EU trademark. “It has been widely demonstrated that the sign is used as a brand and in some cases seen as “‘cult’ in the field of streetwear,” the court said.

Explanation: this is an accurate summation of the latest overall state of affairs across Europe, based on a highly authoritative source in fashion, Women’s Wear Daily, that was published recently – May 5 2020.

Since the Women’s Wear Daily source is behind a paywall, here is the relevant paragraph:

In November, the brand won an appeal with the European Union’s Intellectual Property Office, which recognized Supreme’s brand as distinct and eligible to pursue an EU trademark. The court ruled: “It has been widely demonstrated that the sign is used as a brand” and in some cases seen as “‘cult’ in the field of streetwear.
That tees up the company to secure its trademark across the region.

4. In section “Lawsuit” (to be renamed “Trademarks”), please delete the current first sentence:

“Supreme lost a lawsuit in an Italian court.”

And please substitute:

In 2017, an Italian court ruled that International Brand Firm (IBF) - operator of a brand they called “Supreme Italia” - was engaging in “parasitic competition", leading to the seizure of Supreme Italia products and the closure of their operations and stores in Italy. In 2019, the Italian Criminal Court of Cassation upheld the criminal seizure of about 10 million euros of goods sold under the brand names “Supreme Italia” and “Supreme Spain,” and declared that the ruling that is binding.

Explanation: Puts the issues in proper context of the major legal decisions and holdings. The sentence currently in the article is out of date/false. It is from a 2018 decision that said the seizure of one specific lot of goods in Italy could not be criminally prosecuted. That ruling has since been overturned by the decision of Italy’s highest criminal court. The cited source, il Sole 24 Ore, is one of Italy’s leading daily business newspapers. Here is the relevant language from the June 2020 article (the fourth paragraph, which begins “Qualche mese fa…”), translated into English:

A few months ago, however, with the judgment 47827/2019, the Court of Cassation put an end to it, confirming the legitimacy of a series of criminal seizures of goods of Ibf (under the brand name "Supreme Italia" and "Supreme Spain") with an overall value of about 10 million euros in the previous months. For the first time, in fact, trademarks registered in Italy and Spain were blocked as counterfeits. The decision - of the Italian Criminal Court of Cassation – is intended as binding "jurisprudence".

Even before the case was overturned, Italian civil law did not make it legal to sell counterfeits and did not overturn the two Supreme Court cases ruling on the trademark violations. Here is the relevant language from the March 2019 CNN investigation:

The high court in Milan ruled in Chapter 4's [the legal entity/name of Supreme New York] favor twice, in January and April 2017, issuing an injunction that made Supreme Italia's operations in Italy effectively illegal.

5. In section “Lawsuits” (to be renamed “Trademarks”), please delete:

“As a result, Supreme cannot register its trademark in Europe.”

Explanation: This is a naked false statement on several levels. The May 2018 source does not say that “as a result” of an August 2018 Italian court finding (three months after the cited story appeared) declining a criminal prosecution of IBF that Supreme can’t register a trademark in Europe. And even if the source had defied the laws of time and space to describe a future case, the August 2018 ruling was overturned in 2019 by the highest criminal court in Italy, as described above.

Equally importantly, the story does the source say Supreme can’t register its trademark in Europe. Instead, it describes a ruling by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) denying an EU-wide registration, but. as the says: “The only consequence of the EUIPO is that every battle for the trademark registration will be fought in each European State Tribunal.” But even that EUIPO decision has since been overruled by an appeal's court - which found that Supreme can indeed pursue EU-wide trademark. [1], as I have described above in Request #2.

6. In section “Lawsuit” (to be renamed “Trademarks”), please delete:

“Supreme" items not manufactured by Supreme can readily be sold in Italy and Spain,

Explanation: The sources cited do not say anything like this. The source about the release of specific set of seized goods in Italy because a lower court found the seizure was not justified by a criminal statute involving counterfeiting case (As described above, this decision has since been overturned by Italy’s highest criminal court, which ruled definitively that sale of these goods is a criminal violation and such goods could be seized.) Even before the decision was overturned, the cited source says does not say the goods were “readily available” in Italy and Spain.

And, in 2020 a Spanish court ruled that “Supreme”-branded products not made by Supreme could not be sold in Spain. [2] And it remains illegal, as of March 2019, for a knockoff company to sell “Supreme Italia”-branded goods.

7. In section “Lawsuit” (to be renamed “Trademark Disputes”), please change

“…and Samsung was able to sign a promotion agreement with a European "Supreme" (not Supreme).”

TO:

In 2019, Samsung cancelled a promotional agreement it signed with "Supreme Italia" after determining it was not owned by Supreme.

Explanation: the current information is out-of-date. The agreement was cancelled when Samsung learned “Supreme Italia” was not owned by Supreme.

8. As a new paragraph, please insert the following:

On January 21 2020, the Chinese Trademark Office granted Supreme a trademark for apparel across China. Chinese authorities followed up by closing a shop in Shanghai selling counterfeit Supreme products.

Explanation: China trademark covers a large part of the world and is highly relevant to this topic. Since the WWD story is behind a paywall, here is an excerpt from the top of the story:

“Supreme is tightening its global grip.

The skate brand that spawned hordes of imitators and copycats as it staked out its own edgy-cool corner of the luxury world has secured its trademark in China.

The impact appears to have been immediate.

The Chinese Trademark Office officially gave the nod to the mark on Jan. 21, according to public documents. That seems to have led quickly to at least some enforcement actions in the country, including the shuttering of the widely publicized Supreme shop in Shanghai that was set up by another company, as detailed in local media. The trademark covers Supreme-branded shoes, clothing, shirts, belts, jackets, underwear, T-shirts, pants, bandanas and hats.

China was the key piece of Supreme’s global trademark puzzle. It is also the fastest-growing luxury market in the world and right now one of the few that is open while people in the West focus on social distancing.”

Thanks for your consideration to this matter . Oa4251 (talk) 15:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Hi Oa4251. Thanks for the detailed list of changes with references and your conflict of interest declaration. I see you have brought this up at two Wikiprojects as well.

This is a lengthy and complicated request. I expect it will take some time for anyone to review thoroughly. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:32, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I think it is important that information on wikipedia is accurate. And approve of the fact that this was done through this form rather than a direct edit. I think it is important that wikipedias respond to this in a reasonable fashion so that such behaviour (rather than covert editing is encouraged. Of coursre this actually requires someone to be willing to donate their free time to the process! I'll have a look at *one* of these issues now. --Talpedia (talk) 12:28, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

1. Seems entirely reasonably to me. I have made the change --Talpedia (talk) 12:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

2. The context that supreme has successfully registered trademarks in many companies is useful. I note that there is a conflict of interest where this page can act to "ward off" people from selling clothes branded with the word supreme (whether conterfeiting existing items, or merely using the term - potentially in breach trademark). I feel as if the inclusion of the numbers add little to the meaning of the article (and are liable to change), while potentially serving a linguistic goal of "intimindating" would users of the term supreme. I note, however, that the figures are mentioned in the cited article, so is could equally be that the citation is the source of the language. I propose to include the sentence: "Supreme has been granted trademarks in many countries including countries in North America, Europe and Asia. [1]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talpedia (talk • contribs) 12:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

2 I feel that the second sense acts as "synthesis" asserting that the trademarks are necessary for the prevention of conterfeits. This may be the case. I will review it. --Talpedia (talk) 12:44, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

2 I need to think more about the second part of 2. --Talpedia (talk) 12:50, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

3 @User:Oa4251 would be able to supply a link to the ruling itself? I would like to review the ruling itself, rather the articles interpretation of it. Additionally, the quote you include is a finding of fact (which I understand would normally not be considered by an appeal court) rather this would be a ruling of the lower court taken as a fact, though I appreciate that the lower courts ruling may not be available, --Talpedia (talk) 12:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

@Talpedia: Hi. Sorry for the long delay. I had to check with lawyers about the latest.There’s been an important development -- the case is now fully resolved at EUIPO. The decision referenced before only found that Supreme was indeed eligible to apply for an EU-wide trademark. The latest development actually outright grants Supreme the EU-wide trademark for clothing, bags and retail outlets. The trademarks, granted August 25, 2020, can be found here in English: https://euipo.europa.eu/eSearch/#details/trademarks/016815763 Therefore, I am modifying proposal #3, #4, #5 and #6 (from the request above in this section, as follows, and would request you review it and the requests that follow (#6- #8):

3. In the section “Trademarks”, please insert as the new second sentence, following the new first sentence: In November 2019, an appellate court of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) found that Supreme’s brand is distinct and eligible for an EU trademark. “It has been widely demonstrated that the sign is used as a brand and in some cases seen as “‘cult’ in the field of streetwear,” the court said. On August 25, 2020, EUIPO granted Supreme a Europe-wide trademark for bags, clothing and retail stores.

Explanation: this is an accurate summation of the latest overall state of affairs across Europe, based on 1) the actual trademark from EUIPO and 2) as to the prior decision finding eligibility, there is a highly authoritative source in fashion, Women’s Wear Daily, in two separate articles. I have also added a new WWD article, from July 20, 2020, since the last time this was requested: [3] I am able to access it without a paywall, but here’s the relevant language (the last paragraph):

Last year, Chapter 4 also won an appeal with the European Union’s Intellectual Property Office, which recognized Supreme’s brand as distinct and eligible to pursue an EU trademark.

Since the first Women’s Wear Daily source is behind a paywall, here is the relevant paragraph from the first citation:

In November, the brand won an appeal with the European Union’s Intellectual Property Office, which recognized Supreme’s brand as distinct and eligible to pursue an EU trademark. The court ruled: “It has been widely demonstrated that the sign is used as a brand” and in some cases seen as “‘cult’ in the field of streetwear.
That tees up the company to secure its trademark across the region.

As to getting a copy of the full EUIPO decision that Supreme is eligible for a EUIPO trademark, it is also available online (instructions below), but it’s not a simple link. The decision is also in Italian. So I have provided a full translation of the decision below the instructions. Here goes with the EUIPO instructions to get the case:

1) The EUIPO Database provides a link to the document (no need to login). If you go to the landing page for the relevant mark - https://euipo.europa.eu/eSearch/#details/trademarks/016815763 - scroll to the bottom of the page, a few boxes up you will see a box labeled “Decisions”. There is a case number there and to the left of that is a “+” box, which you can click (once you do, it becomes a “-“ as shown below). Click on that and it drops down a link to a “Decision” and you can click on that.

2) That will open up the November 2019 Decision by the EUIPO. This decision concluded that, with the exception of a few specific goods and services (umbrella bags, umbrellas, sunshades, walking sticks, and retail services for those 4 types of goods), the “Supreme” mark at issue had acquired distinctiveness.

3) The final two pages of that document (pages 33 and 34) contain the conclusion on this aspect. I am including below as a courtesy the English translation of the relevant portion of these two pages, which conclude that “it is clear…that the sign is used as a trademark and is perceived as such by a significant portion of the public” and “…it is considered that evidence of distinctiveness under Article 7(EUTMR) has been provided…”. There is further explanation of the reasoning in the below and again available (in Italian) on the website without the need for login information.

Here is the English translation of the EUIPO decision:

Use of the sign as a trademark and public perception

It is clear from the evidence analyzed, and in particular from the articles in magazines and web pages, as well as from the extracts from the applicant's web page, especially from the analysis of social trends and the SWG survey, that the sign is used as a trademark and is perceived as such by a significant portion of the public.

The analysis of the evidence described above, tells the story of a commercial success based on a precise strategy of viral marketing and avant-garde, based on 'association of the sign in question with famous people and artists spanning several generations. This success is also based on a sales strategy aimed at generating demand and, finally, on cooperation between the applicant and companies with well-known brands such as LEVI's®, NIKE®, which to a certain extent belong to the streetwear sector or at least to the casual sector, as well as cooperation with equally well-known brands, which, however, belong to the luxury sector such as Louis Vuitton®.

Moreover, the fact that well-known and established brands have decided to carry out co-branding operations confirms not only that the same is considered a distinctive sign by companies owning well-known brands, but also that they consider the applicant's sign as being able to benefit from well-known brands and to create synergies with the same brands able to benefit from both.

This marketing strategy has been able to renew and adapt over time, understanding and immediately exploiting the ability to penetrate social networks that have further amplified the presence of the sign in question in the market. There are 12 million followers on Instagram ® who are equal to those of "Apple® and higher, for example, than those of "Cartier®".

This has led to associations with famous people such as Madonna, Rihanna, Drake, Lady Gaga, Kylie Jenner who boast a number of followers ranging from 13,000,000 of Madonna to 127,000,000 of Kylie Jenner. The photos of these characters wearing SUPREME products have received appreciations ranging from 100,000 to more than 1.5 million "likes" (above).

The prices at which the well-known auction house Sotheby's two Supreme skateboards were sold ($800,000 and $1,000,000) as well as the SUPREME product exhibition at the MoMa in New York are further confirmation of the success of the sign. (Exhibit 28.1)

As mentioned above, the long waits that consumers are willing to endure in order to be able to buy the products of the applicant are also indicative. In this regard, it is recalled the aforementioned article of The Guardian of February 2018, which mentions how not only consumers must book to be able to line up to buy products of the applicant, but how the City of Westminster has threatened the closure of 'SUPREME' stores in London because of the inconvenience that the queues created by buyers caused. Even in the present case, although the event is after the date of demand, it shows a presence of the sign in the market well before the date of the reported event. (Annex 1, Exhibits 24 and 25).

In conclusion, it has been widely demonstrated that the sign is used as a brand and that such is the perception of the public in the territories of reference that - as shown by the evidence - not only perceives the sign as able to indicate the entrepreneurial origin of products and services, but that in some cases identifies it as a brand of "cult" in the field of streetwear.

Use in connection with the goods and services claimed

On the basis of the extensive documentation submitted, partly cited in this Decision and partly being in the case documentation filed, it is considered that evidence of distinctiveness under Article 7(EUTMR) has been provided for all claimed goods and services except for:

Class 18:  Umbrella bags; umbrellas; Sunshades; walking sticks.
Class 35:  Retail stores, online ordering and retail services, retail store services available via computer communications, for bags for umbrellas, umbrellas, sunshades, walking sticks.

The examiner considers that the sign under examination falls within the scope of Article 7(3) EUTMR and the application may continue for the remaining products and services.

4. In section “Trademarks”, please delete the current first sentence:

“Supreme lost a lawsuit in an Italian court.”

Explanation: I had previously suggested a long paragraph that explained the appeal that rendered this decision moot. But I think it’s all unnecessary now that Supreme has been granted the EUIPO trademark. I think this level of procedural detail is WP: Undue Weight now that this is resolved. However, if you disagree, the full proposed text is above in the previous request #4. As it stands now, this statement is out-of-date.

5. In section “Trademarks”, please delete:

“As a result, Supreme cannot register its trademark in Europe.”

Explanation: This was always a nakedly false statement designed to mislead consumers. Now that the trademark has been granted by EUIPO, it is even more obviously false. There is an extended discussion in #5 previously requessted, explaining how the sources were distorted to reach a false conclusion even before the EUPO trademark was granted.

6. In section “Lawsuit” (to be renamed “Trademarks”), please delete:

“Supreme" items not manufactured by Supreme can readily be sold in Italy and Spain,

Explanation: There is an extended explanation as to why this statement was false in the previous request for #6. But it’s now obviously all superseded by the EUIPO trademark grant from August 20

Requests #7 and #8 requests are the same as above. Thank you so much for your careful consideration! Oa4251 (talk) 17:33, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Request Edits January 2021

I work for Supreme, the subject of the article. Supreme is a clothing and skateboarding brand. I am requesting the following proposals to edit this article with corrections and updates. Since the last requests edits, Supreme was definitively granted its EU trademark. The current text has substantial misinformation that may deceive readers into buying counterfeit accounts. I’d request independent editors review the following proposals for corrections and updates. As required by Wikipedia policy, I am asking for the corrections here rather than directly editing the article.

1. In the section “Trademarks”, please insert as the new second sentence, following the first sentence: In November 2019, an appellate court of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) found that Supreme’s brand is distinct and eligible for an EU trademark. “It has been widely demonstrated that the sign is used as a brand and in some cases seen as “‘cult’ in the field of streetwear,” the court said. On August 27, 2020, EUIPO granted Supreme a Europe-wide trademark for bags, clothing and retail stores.

Explanation: this is an accurate summation of the latest overall state of affairs across Europe, based on 1) the actual trademark from EUIPO and 2) as to the prior decision finding eligibility, there is a highly authoritative source in fashion, Women’s Wear Daily, in two separate articles. I have also added a new WWD article, from July 20, 2020, since the last time this was requested: [4] I am able to access it without a paywall, but here’s the relevant language (the last paragraph):

Last year, Chapter 4 also won an appeal with the European Union’s Intellectual Property Office, which recognized Supreme’s brand as distinct and eligible to pursue an EU trademark.

Since the first Women’s Wear Daily source is behind a paywall, here is the relevant paragraph from the first citation:

In November, the brand won an appeal with the European Union’s Intellectual Property Office, which recognized Supreme’s brand as distinct and eligible to pursue an EU trademark. The court ruled: “It has been widely demonstrated that the sign is used as a brand” and in some cases seen as “‘cult’ in the field of streetwear.
That tees up the company to secure its trademark across the region.

2. In section “Trademarks”, please delete the current second sentence:

“Supreme lost a lawsuit in an Italian court, and the European Union refused to register its trademark, so "Supreme" items not manufactured by Supreme can readily be sold in Italy and Spain, and Samsung was able to sign a promotion agreement with a European "Supreme" (not Supreme).”

Explanation: I had previously suggested a long paragraph that explained an appeal’s court that rendered this earlier, lower-court decision moot. But I think it’s all unnecessary now that Supreme has been granted the EUIPO trademark. I think this level of procedural detail is WP: Undue Weight now that the matter is fully resolved. However, if you disagree, the full proposed text is above in the previous request #1. As it stands now, this statement is out-of-date. Thank you so much for your consideration! Oa4251 (talk) 16:50, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Used my own words, but the bulk of your request is in place. Marking it as  Done Ferkjl (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ferkjl: Thank you for your review! The original request from several months ago did not contain that Supreme was granted a trademark for all of China as well. How would you feel about deleting the entire second paragraph except for:

"After years of litigation, on August 27, 2020, the European Union Intellectual Property Office granted Supreme a Europe-wide trademark for bags, clothing and retail stores. On January 21, 2020 the Chinese Patent Office granted Supreme a trademark for apparel and began enforcement actions against counterfeiters."

The level of detail seems excessive now that all this has been resolved with finality. There were multiple actions spanning years - and Supreme won almost all of them except for this one Italian decision, that was reversed on appeal. We could cite to the appeal that overruled this case -- but it’s excessively intricate detail given it’s all just leading up to the trademark being granted.

The Samsung event resulted in them cancelling the contract when they learned they had been working with a counterfeiter. So to keep it, we’d need to correct that by adding:

"In 2019, Samsung cancelled the promotional agreement it had signed after determining the fake brand was not owned by Supreme."

What do you think?

Thanks again for your review.Oa4251 (talk)

References

Request Edits May 2021

I work for Supreme, the subject of the article. Supreme is a clothing and skateboarding brand. I am requesting the following proposals to edit this article with corrections and updates.

1. In the History section, after the final (sixth) paragraph that begins “In November 2020, VF Corporation announced that…”

PLEASE ADD AS A NEW SECOND SENTENCE:

VF Corporation bought out the investors Carlyle Group and Goode Partners, as well as founder James Jebbia. \

Rationale: Widely covered in mainstream media that the sale was a complete buyout from all owners (not just a partial buyout), including the founder and the private equity groups. In the context of this history of this once underground brand, the ownership structure is quite notable. Other sources covering this include the Wall Street Journal [5] , Vogue [6], CNN [7], and The L.A. Times. [8]

 Done Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 08:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

2. In the section “History”, as the new sixth paragraph (before the final paragraph), please add:

In 2019, a collection of every Supreme deck ever produced sold for $800,000 at a Sotheby’s auction.

Rationale: noteworthy that the company’s old products are being auctioned for a substantial sum at Sotheby’s, one of the leading auction firms in the world.

 Done Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 08:48, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

3. In section “History”, as the end of the third paragraph, after “...don't want to get stuck with stuff nobody wants."

PLEASE ADD:

Supreme releases two collections each year. Instead of offering the entire line at once, every Thursday the brand makes available a few pieces online and in-store from the current season’s collection.

Rationale: This is central to how the company operates as a business and is different from other fashion brands. The importance of this strategy is established by its coverage in Vogue (magazine), one of the more credible authorities in the fashion industry.

 Done with rewrite --FeldBum (talk) 15:14, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

4. In the section “Collaborators”, in the third paragraph, after the first sentence:

During the Fall Winter 2017 season Supreme collaborated with fashion house Louis Vuitton for a Menswear Collection.

PLEASE ADD:

GQ Magazine said “this may be the single hype-iest collaboration [of] the century, if not ever.”

Rationale: The new first sentence phrased as an event that actually happened - the current language seems too speculative. The next sentence with the GQ quote and article gives perspective on the importance/notoriety of the collaboration. While it seems like peacocking, the source is very highly credible for men’s fashion (GQ), and the information about this collection, at least as seen by GQ, is of historical importance.

 Partly done Re-wrote with a different source to make it sound less promotional. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 04:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC) 5. In History section, as the new second paragraph, please add:

Jebbia has said that he opened Supreme in downtown New York because at the time there was nowhere else to buy skate products in lower Manhattan. He decided to focus primarily on the more obscure, harder-to-find items. He said the openness of skateboarders allowed Supreme to take risks and “make things with an open mind.”

Rationale: Fills out the early history of one of the most influential contemporary fashion brands, as sourced by Vogue, the most important brand in fashion.

Thank you for your consideration. Oa4251 (talk) 17:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done with rewrite --FeldBum (talk) 15:14, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Oa4251, 1-3 look very straightforward. #4 is a little POV and promotional for my taste, but happy to hear from another editor. #5 is a bit mixed. Mind if I take a rewrite? --FeldBum (talk) 18:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Yea I agree #4 is a bit too promotional. But it's more-or-less correct. South China Morning Post listed the Supreme x LV collab as one of the most successful collabs of all time. For #5, I would remove the second sentence since it's not really supported by the source. And the quote in the third sentence seems out of context. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 08:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

References

@FeldBum: Thank you for taking a look at this! Quick request: seems like you reviewed #3 and said it was straightforward but did not get a chance to implement it. Could you? It would also be great if you could offer a rewrite to revise #5, as you suggested. As per User: Dr. Swag Lord, perhaps you also want to revise #4? A less promotional paraphrase? E.g. “GQ Magazine said the fashion collaboration attracted a frenzy of attention.” I know that sounds really promotional and it would be in most cases -- the thing is, as Dr. Swag says, that it is true. The amount of hype about the collaboration was really over the top. One of the most iconic traditional fashion brands teamed up with one of the most iconic “underground” fashion brands to create a new line - and that was a huge deal in the fashion world. Thank you. Oa4251 (talk)

Hey Oa4251, I was able to add in #3 and #5. --FeldBum (talk) 11:50, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Marked as done. Unless another editors feels different, I'm inclined to turn down #4 and mark as done. --FeldBum (talk) 15:14, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

What is the issue with the article?

Article is marked as being promotional or otherwise using inappropriate links. My guess is the History section, since it seems more like a shallow highlights reel but it doesn't seem to be particularly biased - any thoughts? Natebwilson (talk) 20:42, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Actually I think "History" is pretty OK, for a while it was a play-by-play of new store openings, which is really more a violation of WP:NOTNEWS. But for the advert tag, you'd have to ask @Hipal, maybe they use it to discourage drive-by edits regarding Supreme's many "collaborations" (I hate that word, it's just co-branding for zoomers) 70.163.220.139 (talk) 23:41, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I've been waiting for the editing to slow down. Seems like the article gets a lot of fan- or coi-driven editing, but not enough to protect the article. The recent sale seems to have resulted in attempts to clean up the worst of it, but the fan+ problems continue. --Hipal (talk) 18:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)