There was no shortage of legal issues affecting the fashion and footwear industries in 2024.
While trademark complaints made up the bulk of the legal dramas this year, other disputes made headlines as well.
From Adidas’ never-ending battle with Thom Browne to Nike sparring with Shoe Surgeon, FN rounds up 10 of the biggest legal dramas in fashion and footwear in 2024.
In what seems to be a never-ending saga, Thom Browne won the latest round of the multinational legal dispute with Adidas over striped trademarks last month.
The High Court of England and Wales, located in London, on Friday dismissed Adidas‘ claims of trademark infringement. In July, Adidas sought to remove Thom Browne’s range of products comprising its signature four-bar motif from the U.K. market, contending it would confuse consumers.
This is the latest ruling in the ongoing contentious battle. In May, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit said it would not overturn the jury verdict reached in January 2023 that found Browne’s use of four stripes and its grosgrain ribbon did not infringe upon Adidas’ three-stripe trademark.
Steve Madden is seeking to stop Ganni from interfering with its business relationships in its latest legal battle.
According to an ongoing lawsuit that was first filed in July in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Steve Madden is claiming that Ganni has sent a rapid series of cease-and-desist letters to the company and its United States wholesale customers and resellers, including Nordstrom and Dillard’s, since February.
In the letters, Steve Madden said that the Danish fashion brand is alleging that its “Graya” flat and, at least in one instance, the “Sandria” sandal, infringe worldwide copyrights and other intellectual property rights Ganni claims to own in its “Feminine Buckle Ballerina” and “Feminine Buckle Two-Strap Sandal.”
Last month, the Shoe Surgeon clapped back at Nike and the lawsuit the sportswear giant filed against him earlier this year.
Nike sued the The Shoe Surgeon in July and claimed the shoe customizer attempted “to build an entire multifaceted retail empire” using Nike’s trademark rights by creating and selling counterfeit Nike shoes, and selling classes that teach consumers how to make their own fake Nike shoes. In a Monday response to the lawsuit, The Shoe Surgeon denied Nike’s claims, describing them as “false allegations” and “deleterious lies” as part of a general “smear campaign.”
The Shoe Surgeon also said Nike’s statement to the media after it filed its initial complaint had a negative effect on his business.
In a lawsuit filed Sept. 4 in the Southern District of New York, Skechers accused Rockport, as well as its parent company Authentic Brands Group and its licensee Marc Fisher, of allegedly making and selling shoes that infringe on Skechers’ patented slip-in technology.
“Defendants [Rockport, Marc Fisher and Authentic] did so without even contacting Skechers to request a license to Skechers’ intellectual property protecting the innovations used in those shoes,” Skechers wrote in the complaint. “Rockport shoes infringe Skechers’ utility patent claims protecting innovations associated with its slip-in footwear technology. By this action, Skechers seeks to stop defendants’ patent infringement and obtain appropriate compensation for that infringement.”
In the lawsuit, Skechers called out Rockport’s Tristen Step Activated Slip On shoes as well as the Tristen Step Activated Lace-Up shoes as the main footwear models that allegedly infringed on its patents. Skechers specifically pointed to the heel cups and upper construction as what was being infringed.
In July, Crocs and Australian retailer Mosaic Brands Ltd. settled their trademark infringement lawsuit.
Both brands announced on Thursday that they have resolved their trademark dispute in the Federal Court of Australia. Crocs initially filed a case against Mosaic Brands in 2021, accusing the retailer of selling a product that it said was “deceptively similar” to Crocs’ Classic Clog, according to a release. Crocs argued at the time that its Classic Clog silhouette was protected by trademark registrations in more than 30 countries, including Australia.
While the terms of the settlement were not disclosed, Mosaic agreed to stop making and selling certain molded shoe products and similar styles before year’s end. Both parties agreed to the terms of the settlement without admissions.
In June, Toms sued Amazon seller Bloom Trading Inc. and Arsanious Youssef, its CEO, in California’s Central District Court over alleged trademark infringement and unfair competition. In the complaint, filed June 5, Toms alleges that the storefront has turned a profit off unauthorized—and “potentially counterfeit”—products.
According to the complaint, Bloom Trading is an unauthorized reseller, which Toms heavily frowns upon because of its authorized reseller program. The company says it mandates resellers to abide by its quality control requirements, which include inspecting products for “damage, defects, evidence of tampering and other non-conformance and remov[ing] all such products from inventory,” prohibiting sellers from shipping damaged products, flagging quality issues to Toms and more.
In a lawsuit filed Sept. 16 in the Southern District of Ohio, Kizik accused Tishkoff Enterprises, LLC, dba “Drew Shoe” for patent infringement of its signature cage technology that has allowed them to innovate in the hands-free shoe category.
According to Kizik, Drew Shoe’s hands-free footwear line incorporates the use of a similar flexible lattice on the heel of the shoe in at least the Connor, Corbin, Caleb, Bobbie, Hobby and Harmony footwear models.
Kizik also alleged in the lawsuit that Drew Shoe acted with “intentional and bad faith conduct” when designing and promoting its alleged infringing products. This was illustrated in the lawsuit by highlighting Drew Shoe’s “LOOK MA! No Hands, No Hassle, NO KIDDING” advertising, which is substantially similar to Kizik’s original hands-free advertising using its “Look Ma, No Hands” slogan.
In April, Nike settled its trademark infringement lawsuit against Japanese streetwear brand Bape.
According to a stipulated dismissal filed in New York’s Southern District Court on April 29, Nike and Bape said that they have entered into a settlement agreement in resolution of their year-long legal battle over look-alike shoe designs first filed in January 2023.
As part of the settlement, Bape has agreed to discontinue its Bape Sta Mid, Court Sta, and Court Sta High sneakers, and modify the designs of its Bape Sta and Sk8 Sta sneaker models.
In April, Skechers filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court in California that alleged that American Exchange Apparel Group (AEG) infringed on its patents related to its “Scalloped Opening” shoe designs, a popular design element on Skechers’ flats.
Skechers said its shoes with scalloped openings, or a wavy cut pattern around the part of the shoe where the foot goes in, “have sold millions of pairs” and that AEG’s design infringes on nine of Skechers’ patents for this style.
Skechers added that AEG continued to sell the products after it had been notified about the alleged infringement. Skechers is seeking a ruling prohibiting the continued sale of the shoes in question and compensation for damages incurred.
Dr. Martens filed a lawsuit against Temu for infringing its trademarks in April.
According to The Sunday Times, the British bootmaker alleged in a new lawsuit filed last week at the UK’s High Court that the Chinese marketplace paid to manipulate Google searches so that lookalike items appear above its own products in search results.
The complaint alleged that Temu is promoting keywords like “Dr. Martens” and “Airwair” in certain markets, which resulted in look-alike boots appearing above Dr. Martens’ originals in Google search results, the report said.
Dr. Martens also wrote in the complaint that Temu’s actions also go against Google’s own policies, which prohibit ads violating trademark rights. This, however, typically doesn’t link to the use of specific keywords.
