Sneaker Maker Vans Sues MSCHF Over ‘Wavy Baby’ Shoe

The Vans sneaker company is accusing MSCHF Product Studio of mischief.

As Footwear News reported Friday (April 15), Vans has filed a federal lawsuit against the Brooklyn art collective, accusing it of “blatantly and unmistakably copied Vans’ trademarks and trade dress” with the marketing, advertising and packaging of MSCHF’s Wavy Baby shoe.

MSCHF began marketing the shoe in March, with plans to launch it Monday (April 18). According to the report, the shoe appears to be modeled after the Vans Old-Skool silhouette but altered so it features a wave-like decoration.

The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court’s Eastern District of New York, also claims that the name “Wavy Baby” is too similar to Vans’ WAYVEE mark that the company began using last year, the report stated.

MSCHF issued a statement Thursday (April 14), saying Vans asked MSCHF to settle in exchange for half the profits from Wavy Baby (and four pairs of shoes for themselves).

“They also indicated they were willing to meet about future collaborations LMAO,” MSCHF said. “Turns out that they were shaking our hand at the same time they were stabbing us in the back.”

MSCHF argued what it does is art, using “existing, potent pieces of culture as our building blocks and working medium to create new works.”

It also claimed that the sneaker industry has a tradition of companies “riffing” on one another.

“Standard shoe industry practice is: steal a sole, steal an upper, change a symbol,” according to the statement.

This is not the first time a major sneaker company has gone after MSCHF. Last year, Nike filed a federal trademark infringement suit against the collective and rapper Little Nas X, who worked together to create the limited edition “Satan Shoes.”

Read more: Nike Sues Rap Star ‘Lil Nas X’ And ‘MSCHF’ Over Patent Infringement

Nike argued the sneakers — a reworked version of its Air Max 97 sneakers that includes satanic symbols and a drop of human blood in the soles — was unauthorized, confusing, and diluted its iconic brand. The case was quickly settled, although terms of the settlement were not disclosed.