13 of the Biggest Legal Dramas in Fashion and Footwear in 2023
There was no shortage of legal issues affecting the fashion and footwear industries in 2023.
While trademark complaints made up the bulk of the legal dramas this year, other disputes involving nonpayment of services and alleged money laundering made headlines as well.
More from Footwear News
From Adidas’ ongoing battle with Thom Browne to New Balance sparring with Golden Goose, FN rounds up 13 of the biggest legal dramas in fashion and footwear in 2023.
Adidas vs. Thom Browne Court Battle Heats Up Again
Attorneys for Adidas and Thom Browne were back in a Manhattan court last week, wrestling over the intent of disclosure of five e-mails that surfaced after a trial between the two parties had wrapped up earlier this year. Judge Jed Rakoff of the Southern District of New York presided over the hearing between the two parties on Dec. 21, where three witnesses were grilled about the labeling and processing of the e-mails, which included exchanges with the designer himself..
In October, Adidas believed it found a smoking gun in its ongoing battle with Thom Browne over the designer brand’s use of stripes — enough to warrant a new trial. According to court papers, the German athletic brand claimed that Thom Browne “improperly withheld several e-mail chains in which Thom Browne admits to the ultimate liability issue in this case — a likelihood of confusion between the company’s ‘four bar’ design and Adidas’s three-stripe mark.”
Adidas said the emails did not surface until August, seven months after the trial was completed, when Thom Browne’s lawyers in the U.K. produced them during a separate trademark dispute there involving the same marks and many of the same products, the court papers detailed.
In January, an eight-person jury in Manhattan Southern District Court came back with a verdict that found the luxury designer was not liable for damages or profits that it made selling product with four stripes or its trademark grosgrain ribbon.
New Balance Sues Golden Goose for Allegedly Copying Its 990 Sneaker
In November, Golden Goose hit back amid its legal troubles with New Balance.
The Italian fashion sneaker brand filed a motion in Massachusetts court last month to dismiss New Balance’s trademark infringement complaint, which alleged that Golden Goose’s Dad-Star shoe was confusingly similar to New Balance’s 990 design. New Balance opposed the motion and asked the court for an extension to respond.
According to the filing on Nov. 20, attorneys for Golden Goose claimed that New Balance does not own the federal trademark registration for the trade dress it alleges, that New Balance “failed to plausibly allege rights in a protectable trade dress,” and that the original complaint “fails to allege any claim on which relief may be granted.”
In the original lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Massachusetts in August, New Balance claimed that Golden Goose’s “Dad-Star” sneaker, which the Italian-based label began selling in 2021 for $625, is a “confusingly similar design” to the New England shoe company’s 990 model, first launched in 1982 and currently retails for $199.
James Whitner Named in $32 Million Money Laundering Complaint
Well-known sneaker retailer James Whitner has been named in a complaint alleging an international money laundering scheme.
A civil forfeiture complaint filed in a North Carolina district court in November said that Whitner, who owns shops such as A Ma Maniére and Social Status, was involved in a “trade-based money laundering network” in which he allegedly helped move millions of dollars in illegal funds under the guise of reselling footwear and apparel. Whitner has not been charged criminally.
According to the complaint, Whitner sold millions of dollars worth of sneakers to a Chinese national, who then resold the products in China and elsewhere. Then, a broker in China would direct Chinese money couriers to collect large sums of cash made from “illegal activity” including, potentially, prostitution. This cash then went to Whitner, the filing said.
In a statement on social media, the Whitaker Group said the allegations are “unfounded, unrelated to our business or this community and unjustified.” The group stated that it has cooperated with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of North Carolina (USAO) and has complied with “all tax obligations annually.”
Christian Louboutin and Meta Team Up to Fight Counterfeiter
Meta and Christian Louboutin joined forces last month to file a joint lawsuit against an individual allegedly running a counterfeiting operation from Mexico.
According to the suit, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in November, Meta and Louboutin allege that Cesar Octavio Guerrero Alejo violated Meta’s terms of service and Instagram’s terms of use and infringed Christian Louboutin’s intellectual property rights by using Facebook and Instagram accounts to promote the sale of counterfeit Christian Louboutin products.
All told, the lawsuit claimed that Alejo created and maintained at least 44 Facebook user accounts from May 3, 2010 through Jan. 11, 2023, as well as at least 32 Instagram accounts from Oct. 15, 2015 through Dec. 28, 2022.
Now, both Meta and Louboutin are asking the Court to permanently block Alejo from continuing his operation and order him to destroy all remaining inventory. The two plaintiffs are also seeking restitution and damages.
Nike Accuses Skechers and New Balance of Copying Its FlyKnit Technology
In two separate complaints filed Nov. 6, Nike accused New Balance and Skechers of infringing on its patented Flyknit technology in several of their shoe models. In the complaint filed against Skechers in California, Nike said that Skechers’ Slip-ins, Go Walk and Ultra Flex shoe lines infringe on its Flyknit technology. In its suit filed against New Balance in Massachusetts federal court, Nike said New Balance’s Fresh Foam, FuelCell and other sneaker lines infringe on its patents.
A Skechers spokesperson said in a statement at the time that it plans to “vigorously defend the patent suit” filed by Nike and “expects to completely vindicate itself and is looking forward to its day in court.”
The spokesperson added that Skechers sees this lawsuit as “an example of how Nike uses its vast financial resources to stifle competition rather than compete in the marketplace” and said Nike uses its power in the market to “attempt to monopolize the footwear and sports apparel industries through exclusive arrangements, which, as a practical matter, forecloses viable and meaningful competition for high-profile athletic sponsorships.”
In a statement sent to FN, a New Balance representative said that the company “fully respects” competitors’ intellectual property rights. “Nike does not own the exclusive right to design and produce footwear by traditional manufacturing methods that have been used in the industry for decades,” the New Balance rep said. “We will vigorously defend ourselves against Nike’s attempts to enforce its patents beyond their lawful scope.”
LaMelo Ball and Puma Hit With $200 Million Trademark Lawsuit
Alan Foster, the cofounder of the Big Baller Brand, has filed a new lawsuit against Charlotte Hornets point guard LaMelo Ball, his family’s business and Puma. He is seeking $200 million in damages.
According to a complaint filed on Nov. 6 in U.S. District Court in Central California, the one-time friend and business partner of the Ball family is alleging that LaMelo and his company, MB1 Enterprises, “knowingly engaged” in misappropriation, trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and other related “tortious acts” against him.
Similarly, Foster also alleged in the suit that Puma desired to utilize the trademarks owned by him but chose instead to utilize marks that were “intentionally designed” to be confusingly similar.
This isn’t the first time the Ball family had legal issues with Foster. Chicago Bulls point guard Lonzo Ball sued Foster for $2 million after he learned Foster had served prision time in 2002 for money laundering. Foster countersued both Lonzo and his father LaVar for breach of contract.
Jessica Simpson’s Company Sues Fashion Brand for Using the Name ‘Jessica’
In a lawsuit filed in Manhattan federal court in July, Jessica Simpson’s company, With You LLC, is suing small business owner Jessica Tirado over the use of the name “Jessica.”
According to the complaint, Tirado filed a request to register “Jessica’s Everything Shop, JES” as a trademark for an online store operating under that name selling clothing, footwear and a variety of other consumer goods.
In the suit, With You claims that Tirado’s “unauthorized use” of a trademark that is confusingly similar to Jessica Simpson’s trademarks “dilutes, tarnishes, and weakens” the quality of its marks.
With You is seeking the court to stop Tirado from using “Jessica’s Everything Shop, JES” marks in her business as well as any monetary damages suffered by Simpson through the alleged infringement.
Reebok Sues Autry on Trademark Claims
Reebok took action against Autry for allegedly selling “high-priced knockoffs” of its sneakers earlier this year. In a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Massachusetts in May, the Authentic Brands Group-owned athletic brand sued Autry International and Autry USA for allegedly copying several of its trademarks and creating confusion in the market.
In the complaint, Reebok stated that Autry has not only “blatantly” copied its Window Box Mark in all of its shoes, but also its Crosscheck and Stripecheck marks.
“Autry has done, and continues to do so by developing, advertising, promoting, offering to sell, and selling shoes that all bear Reebok’s exact Window Box Mark,” Reebok stated in the complaint. “Autry has likewise escalated its infringement of Reebok’s rights through the introduction of its ‘Open Mid’ shoe, which uses not only an identical Window Box Mark but also a mark that is identical and/or virtually identical to Reebok’s Crosscheck and Stripecheck Marks.”
Reebok is requesting the Court to permanently restrict Autry from advertising, marketing, promoting, offering for sale, distributing, or selling the alleged infringing shoes that use its Stripecheck, Crosscheck, and/or Window Box Marks. Reebok is also requesting that Autry to recall all of its infringing footwear and to deliver all infringing items to be destroyed.
Nike’s Trademark Dispute Against By Kiy Over Copycat Jordan 1s
The battle between By Kiy and Nike continues. After a confusing filing in late August, Nike lawyers asked U.S. District Court Judge Victor Marrero to reopen their trademark case that may have been mistakenly marked closed.
According to the Aug. 28 court document, Nike representatives noted that on Aug. 22, 2023, Nike and defendant David Weeks filed a joint motion for a consent judgment and permanent injunction, which was entered by the Court on Aug. 23, 2023.
“The consent judgment and permanent injunction was directed to defendant David Weeks alone,” the filing said. “Following the Court’s entry of the consent judgment and permanent injunction, it appears the Court may have marked the case closed as to all parties.”
“As Nike’s claims against By Kiy LLC and Nickwon Arvinger are not resolved and to the extent the above-referenced case was closed as to all parties, Nike respectfully requests that this case be reopened as to defendants By Kiy LLC and Nickwon Arvinger,” the filing noted.
This is the latest in a year-long dispute between Nike and Nickwon Arvinger and David Weeks of By Kiy LLC. In December 2022, Nike brought a trademark infringement case against the shoemakers for knocking off its Air Jordan 1 and Dunk sneaker styles.
In February, By Kiy struck back against Nike with a countersuit. In the legal action, the company said its shoe designs in question are “a different type of product than the athletic shoes Nike sells” and that its lightning bolt design in the center looks nothing like Nike’s “Swoosh.”
Louis Vuitton Seeks Millions from Atlanta Flea Market
In April, Louis Vuitton filed a new lawsuit against a popular Atlanta-area indoor flea market for allowing its tenants to allegedly sell counterfeit goods. In the complaint, filed in U.S. District Court in Atlanta, Ga., the French luxury brand sued Westgate Discount Mall, and its owners Basirou Kebbay and Aaron Kebe, for creating a “safe haven” for the sale of counterfeit Louis Vuitton merchandise, as well as a host of other well-known brands.
In the court filing, Louis Vuitton stated that the flea market operators “turned a blind-eye” to the activity despite being “repeatedly notified” of the action by the company and are “fully aware” that its tenants were engaged in the sale of counterfeit goods. “In so doing, defendants allowed the sale of such merchandise to flourish on a massive scale to the detriment of Louis Vuitton,” the company alleged.
Specifically, Louis Vuitton stated that it sent Westgate Discount Mall “at least 31 notices” concerning tenants at the market that had attempted to import counterfeit products but had the products seized by US Customs and Border Protection. With this claim, Louis Vuitton is seeking an amount of up to $2,000,000 per counterfeit mark per each type of good as well as profits resulting from the sale of the alleged fake merchandise.
Deckers Claims Walmart Copied Ugg, Hoka and Teva Designs in Lawsuit
Deckers filed a lawsuit against Walmart in January, claiming the retailer infringed on designs for its Ugg, Hoka and Teva brands. According to the suit, filed in a California court, Walmart sold lookalikes of Deckers’ Ugg Classic Ultra Mini, the Ugg Oh Yeah slide, the Hoka Ora Recovery slide, the Teva Hurricane Drift sandal and the Teva Original Universal sandal in the ‘90s multi colorway.
Walmart introduced these similar products to the marketplace “in an effort to exploit Deckers’ goodwill and the reputation” of its brands, the complaint read.
Deckers said it believes Walmart obtained some of these lookalike products through third-party manufacturers, such as the Portland Boot Company, Kendall + Kylie, Fifth & Luxe, Luxur, Wonder Nation, as well as through Walmart’s own private label brand Time and Tru.
“We respect intellectual property rights and take these allegations seriously,” Walmart said in a statement. “We will review the complaint once we have been served with it and will respond as appropriate with the court.”
Kanye West’s Many Legal Battles Continue
Kanye West and his fashion brand Yeezy were ordered to pay over $300,000 to Brooklyn, N.Y.-based creative Katelyn Mooney after failing to appear in court in May. Manhattan Supreme Court Judge Gerald Lebovits issued a default judgment in Mooney’s favor, after no lawyer for West or Yeezy was entered on the docket for the fashion line and it never responded to court papers.
The lawsuit, which was originally filed in Manhattan Supreme Court in December 2022, saw Mooney allege that West and his Yeezy brand owed her over $300,000 in damages and unpaid invoices related to a photo shoot she was hired to produce in September.
Separately, Gap Inc. reportedly filed its own lawsuit against Kanye West for $2 million in expenses related to the fallout of the Yeezy Gap partnership. According to reports in May, Art City Center, a company that owns a Los Angeles building that was set to house the Yeezy Gap line under a new lease to Gap, sued the apparel company last year. The building owner said this space underwent renovations to ready it for the Yeezy Gap line, which never came to fruition. Now the company wants to restore the space and is asking Gap to pay.
With its new suit against West, Gap is shifting the blame to the designer and requesting he pay the building expenses as well as Gap’s legal fees in the matter against Art City Center.
Nike Sues Lululemon Over Sneakers
Nike sued Lululemon at the beginning of the year, claiming that some of the athleisure brand’s new sneakers infringe on its patents.
In a lawsuit filed in a New York District Court in January, Nike alleged that Lululemon’s Chargefeel Mid, Chargefeel Low, Blissfeel and Strongfeel sneakers infringe on Nike’s patents related to its Flyknit technology. Specifically, Nike’s claims relate to the way the shoes in question are manufactured as well as their textile and structural elements.
Nike is seeking an undisclosed sum in damages and a permanent injunction to prevent any further infringement. The lawsuit came almost a year after Lululemon first launched footwear, starting with the rollout of its Blissfeel running shoe in March 2022.
In a statement, a Lululemon company spokesperson said, “Nike’s claims are unjustified, and we look forward to proving our case in court.”
Best of Footwear News
Sign up for FN's Newsletter. For the latest news, follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.
