I'm maybe misunderstanding this. They took shoes from nike, and modified them in various ways, then resold them. Nike sued because they left a nike logo visible. Isn't the right of first supposed to guarantee their right to resell these shoes?
This video covers it in pretty good depth. https://youtu.be/GuYd4RP0_qk
Nike felt the way the shoes were marketed and sold was confusing enough that people might assume these were official Nike shoes.
If you're speaking about the resale doctrine when you say "right of first" in trademark law it appears that altering the goods so they are materially different is where the line is drawn.if you substantially alter them, it sounds like you don't retain the rights and protections under the resellers doctrine.