In other words, you're a capitalism-hating, pinko commie. Go back to Russia. ;)

Trademark law centers around a "likelihood of confusion" standard, i.e. the purpose of trademarks is to lessen consumer confusion. However, if you also think of trademarks, and in this case, trade dress, as a property right, i.e. Nike's exclusive right to use its name/style on its shoes, then it changes things. You say that Nike isn't harmed because these fakes aren't "copies" of actual Nike shoes in the same way other counterfeit products are, but I think they are being harmed in at least 3 ways.

First, if Nike has an exclusive right to use its name, style, etc. on its products, then it has a right to squeeze out all value from the use of its trademarks/trade dress. If that is the case, then the value created from the sales of these fakes is being denied to Nike, since I doubt they are seeing even $1 of it.

Second, once someone has actually bought these fakes (knowing they were fakes or not), if people looking at them on people's feet think they are made by Nike, then their perception of Nike's products has been effected. In this case, negatively, either because of the poor quality of them or because they are aesthetically unappealing (read: fugly). Consumers will think that Nike either makes poor quality products, or ugly products, which is detrimental to their image.

Third, even if people's confusion is cleared up before buying these fakes, their attention has still been diverted. This hurts Nike because consumers, or potential consumers, have been alerted to their "competition". While people may not buy these particular "fugazis", they are made aware that companies other than Nike make "Nike-like" products, and perhaps in the future they will buy other fakes that are more to their liking.

Again, just my $.02 based on my limited knowledge of trademark law.

I don't think at this point in time that seeing an ugly pair of kicks is going to change anybody's perception of Nike.  They are so engrained in our pop culture that everyone knows that with the variety nike offers, some shoes won't pass the litmus test with some people.  I sincerely doubt anyone is gonna boycot nikes cus the jamaica patterned AF1's they saw gave them the willies.

Also, most people who choose to buy $75 fake jordans - usually can't afford to spend $215 for the real version.  Those cats would have been scared off by big the price tag and would otherwise have opted to buy the $75 real addidas.  If U could afford real J's, you'd buy real J's.  Nike would'nt lose money.  Addidas would.

THIS IS OOOAKLAND!!!

If Nike wants people to line up for new Dunks on release day because people know that if they don't get their sizes the first day they probably won't get them at all, then that is their decision to make. If people can just get the fakes in unlimited quantities indefinitely thereafter, then Nike loses some of the "hype" - which undoubtedly has SOME value to Nike.

Nike wants to create a "either get these shoes now or you'll miss out"type of phenomenon, then I think that it is their right, as the owner of that trademark/trade dress to do so. While we cannot quantify their actual loss with any degree of accuracy, that doesn't mean that we can claim they aren't being harmed at all.

I believe that Nike occasionally does re-release retro kicks, i.e. Jordans, whose sales would be hurt if people were able to get knock-offs before that actually happens.

Let's say you own a car - it's yours, paid in full. Now, let's say that when you're not using the car, someone steals it to go joy riding, uses it as a place to nap, goes to the drive-thru, etc. Now, when they are done with it, they clean it up, fills up the gas, and put it back before you need to use it again. In terms of VALUE, aside from a few more miles on the odometer, the value of your car is the same as it was. No appreciable difference, right? I mean, there is no "damage" done to your car, there isn't any less gas in the tank, and the thief only used it while you weren't going to anyways, right?

Now, I don't know about you guys, but whether I was going to use my car during that time or not, I  sure as hell wouldn't want someone stealing it to go for a spin. It isn't even about the difference in value pre-steal vs. value post-steal.

It's much more visceral than that. It is YOUR property. You worked for it, you paid for it, and it's yours. One of the fundamental rights as a property owner, perhaps THE MOST important right, is to be able to use what's yours when, where, and however you feel like it. Whether you leave it parked in your garage for a month collecting just or take it to the local racetrack, no one can tell you what to do with your stuff. Conversely, you have the absolute right to tell others to NOT use/take/borrow your stuff - the right to exclude.

This is the same with trademarks. Nike designed its swoosh, designed its Jordons/Dunks/AF1/etc. and built its business from the ground up centered around public perception of the brand and those customers' good will. No one has a right to "use" Nike's property without their permission, regardless of whether you can quantify any loss in profits or not.

But for the most part people do not know that they are buying fakes, it is really hard to tell especially when most shoe transactions are done over ebay and online.  People just can't tell if they aren't a sneakerhead and even if you are its difficult.  Because often times the sellers do not show all the pictures that will guarantee that its authentic, and some sellers believe they are authentic.  

Screw rocking fakes.