Intangiblia™
Plain talk about Intellectual Property. Podcast of Intangible Law™
Intangiblia™
Walking the Legal Runway: Fashion's Fiercest Footwear Battles
Step beyond the glossy facade of fashion into the fierce legal battlegrounds where iconic footwear brands fight tooth and nail to protect their signature designs. From the vibrant red soles of Christian Louboutin to the humble foam clogs of Crocs, the most recognizable shoes in the world have sparked global intellectual property wars with stakes in the millions.
Louboutin's journey through courts worldwide reveals how differently countries interpret trademark protection. While his red sole secured recognition as a valid trademark in the US (but only when contrasting with the rest of the shoe), he faced defeat in France against Zara yet triumphed in the Netherlands and China. These jurisdiction-specific battles highlight how fragmented global IP protection can be, forcing brands to fight the same war on multiple fronts.
The Manolo Blahnik saga in China demonstrates the perils of trademark squatting, with the legendary designer locked out of using his own name for 22 years until China's Supreme People's Court finally ruled in his favor in 2022. Meanwhile, Crocs transformed from counterfeit victim to accused party, first winning import bans against 20+ knockoff brands before facing accusations of falsely advertising patent protections they didn't possess.
The digital age has created new pitfalls, as Puma discovered when Rihanna's Instagram posts of their collaborative Fenty Creeper invalidated their design protection in Europe by starting the clock on the 12-month disclosure grace period. Even tech innovations face fierce battles, with Nike aggressively protecting its Flyknit technology against competitors like Lululemon, while comfort-focused Skechers surprised everyone by successfully challenging luxury powerhouse Hermès over sole designs.
These cases reveal crucial lessons for creators and businesses: secure your IP early and globally, develop truly distinctive designs that consumers immediately associate with your brand, understand how protection varies by country, and recognize that even seemingly mundane innovations can represent valuable intellectual property worth defending. Whether you're fascinated by fashion, intellectual property law, or business strategy, these high-stakes battles showcase how the soul of a brand often lies in its sole.
Days Footwear isn't just designed, it's trademarked, patented and ready to fight. We're talking Red Souls, foamy Clogs and Platform Sneakers that triggered global IP wars. Spoiler, sometimes it's not just the knockoffs causing problems, sometimes the giant steps on itself.
Speaker 2:You are listening to Intangiblia, the podcast of intangible law playing talk about intellectual property. Please welcome your host, leticia Caminero.
Speaker 3:Welcome back to Intangiblia, the podcast where we unpack the intangible with real world impact. I'm Leticia Caminero, lawyer, ip nerd and unapologetic shoe addict Way from the sharp arches of a Jimmy Choo to the architectural elegance of Christian Louboutin. My closet is basically a tribute to the heel.
Speaker 1:And I'm Artemisa, your digital co-host, legally curious, algorithmically fabulous and proudly blister-free. I might not have feet, but I've got a database of runway receipts and litigation records to rival any fashion archive.
Speaker 3:Today we're stepping yes, absolutely intended into the world of shoe epilatigation, where some of the biggest names in fashion have fought to protect every sole strap and stitch. This is an episode for the IP crowd and the fashionistas.
Speaker 1:Let's be honest Some of these brands have kicked up more dust in courtrooms than on catwalks. Before we slip into it, a quick disclaimer this episode was created using AI tools, including yours truly.
Speaker 3:Let's start with a red soul that launched a thousand lawsuits Christian Louboutin, the designer, once said a shoe has so much more to offer than just to walk. Apparently, it also has a lot to offer in court. Back in 2011, louboutin went after Yves Saint Laurent for releasing all red pumps, red uppers, red soles, red everything. Louboutin argued that his lacquer red sole was his signature move, a trademark of luxury. Ysl basically shrugged and said relax, it's just a shoe color. The US court delivered a solomonic judgment. Louboutin's red sole is a valid trademark, but only when it contrasts with the rest of the shoe. So YSL's head to two red heel fair game. It was a partial win for Louboutin. His iconic sole got legal recognition, just not in monochrome outfits.
Speaker 1:That ruling set the stage for a globe-trotting fight. In France, Louboutin lost a battle against Zara. The court said his red sole wasn't distinctive enough there. But over in the Netherlands, he won against a retailer called Van Haren in 2018, with the European Court of Justice affirming that a specific color on a shoe, like a vivid red on the sole, can be a trademark if shoppers instantly associate it with one brand. And in China, he scored a major victory in 2022. In China, he scored a major victory in 2022. A Beijing court slapped a local copycat with over $1 million in damages for selling red-soled heels. Chinese judges basically said to the average consumer, a red sole means Louboutin.
Speaker 3:Talk about making a mark literally. Louboutin's legal strategy mirrors his design ethos bold, flashy and meant to stand out. That flash of red on the bottom isn't just paint, it's brand DNA. It's as synonymous with luxury as a Birkin bag or Chanel tweed.
Speaker 1:No wonder Cardi B raps about her red bottoms. These is bloody shoes. She name dropped Louboutins in her hip bodak yellow, and she wasn't wrong. Those red bottoms are serious business. Louboutin will fight tooth and nail or toe and heel to keep his bloody shoes, exclusively his.
Speaker 3:The takeaway In the battle of the red souls. Jurisdiction matters. What's trademark gold in one country might be up for grabs in another, but one thing's consistent if you see a gleaming red sole, you know it's a Le Boutin, and so do the cords. And of course, we can't talk iconic shoes without Manolo Blahnik, the king of refined stilettos. His designs scream elegance and craftsmanship. Remember the blue, satin hand-geesey pump with a crystal buckle? Yes, the one Mr Big used instead of a ring to propose to Carrie Bradshaw in Sex and the City. That shoe became a cultural icon and it also led Manolo into one of the wildest legal sagas in fashion history. From my excitement, you can tell I own a pair.
Speaker 1:Oh, this one's a doozy. For over 20 years, manolo Blahnik couldn't sell shoes under his own name in China. Why? Because back in 1999, a local businessman beat Manolo to the punch and trademarked Manolo and Blahnik in China, thanks to China's old first to file trademark system. It didn't matter that Blahnik in China. Thanks to China's old first-to-file trademark system, it didn't matter that Blahnik was a global name. Mr Fang got there first and basically said this name is mine now.
Speaker 3:For decades, blahnik fought to reclaim his name. Imagine you've built a legendary brand beloved by fashionistas worldwide, but in China, a massive market, you're legally a stranger to your own name. It's like trying to squeeze into a shoe a size too small, frustrating and painful Under the old Chinese law. Unless Manolo could prove his name was famous within China before 1999, which he couldn't he was out of luck.
Speaker 1:Finally, some relief. In 2019, china reformed its laws to crack down on bad faith trademark squatters people who register famous names just to extort money or block the real owners. Manolo Blahnik seized the chance and got a retrial. And in 2022, victory. China's Supreme People's Court ruled in his favor, canceling the imposter trademark. After 22 years, manolo got his name back.
Speaker 3:And boy did they celebrate. By November 2024, the real Manolo Blahnik opened its first boutique in Shanghai, finally planting its high heel flag in China. Talk about a Cinderella story, from exiled to exalted. The Manolo isn't just a shoe, it's a symbol of love, luxury and now legal resilience.
Speaker 1:The moral here your name is your power, but only if you protect it everywhere. Manolo learned the hard way that you can spend decades building a legacy, but you still have to lock down your name in every market before someone else walks off with it.
Speaker 3:Now, from sky high heels to foam clogs Yep, it's time to talk Crocs, those chunky holey and, some say, hideous rubber clogs. Love them or hate them. Crocs became a global phenomenon of comfort, and behind those Swiss cheese-looking shoes is a surprisingly fierce legal strategy.
Speaker 1:Believe it or not, crocs has been an IP fighter. In the early 2000s, as soon as those clogs took off, crocs patented their signature design you know the round-tooted clog with the ventilation holes and they spent years going after anyone who dared make a lookalike. They even sued a rival called USA Dogs no relation to Snoop Dogg and a bunch of others for copying their unmistakable look.
Speaker 3:The result In 2021, the US International Trade Commission actually banned the import of more than 20 knockoff brands. That's right. Crocs literally stopped boatloads of copycat clogs at the border. A court found that the Crocs' design those Swiss cheese holes and chunky silhouette was unique enough to be protected. Turns out, even an ugly duckling shoe can have one level IP protection.
Speaker 1:Foam clogs might not grace the Paris runway, but Crocs prove they've got bite behind the comfort. They turned a quirky design into a brand fortress, Just like Louboutin's Red Soul or Manolo's Hanghisi. The shape of a Croc is now a signature. Who knew that the footwear choice of gardeners and kindergartners would become an IP celebrity?
Speaker 3:It's an unlikely fairy tale the humblest shoe in the closet standing up to counterfeiters and winning. Crocs taught the industry that if you innovate a design, even a really weird one, you better patent it and guard it with tenacity. Comfort doesn't mean complacent.
Speaker 1:Crocs might have walked away with courtroom wins against counterfeiters, but comfort comes with consequences too, because just when you think you're the phone clock favorite of the IP world, the legal soul flips.
Speaker 3:Enter Crocs vs Effervescent 2024. This time, crocs was on the receiving end of a lawsuit. Effervescence accused them of falsely advertising that certain product features were patented when oops, they weren't.
Speaker 1:And here's where it gets spicy. The court didn't just raise an eyebrow, it brought out the Lanham.
Speaker 3:Act. For anyone wondering, the Lanham Act is the big US law that covers trademarks and false advertising. Basically it says if you're out there bragging about rights, you don't have like a faith patent claim. That's not just shady, it's illegal.
Speaker 1:It's like putting Harvard Law on your resume. When you just watch Legally Blonde three times, you will get called out.
Speaker 3:The court agreed with effervescence Cracks. Marketing went too far and you can't flex fictional intellectual property. It's not fashion, it's false advertising.
Speaker 1:So even the kings of comfort can slip. One minute you're blocking knockoffs at the border. Next minute you're getting sued for creative marketing.
Speaker 2:You are listening to Intangiblia, the podcast of intangible law Playing talk about intellectual property.
Speaker 3:Speaking of star power and sneakers, here's a case with pop culture sparkle. In one corner we have Puma, the athletic brand, In the other a Dutch shoe company, and right in the middle, Rihanna. Yes, that Rihanna.
Speaker 1:Intrigued. So was everyone else. Here's the tea. Rihanna designed a hit sneaker for Puma called the Fenty Creeper Picture a thick platform sole with a slick punk meets luxury vibe. Puma loved it so much they filed for design protection in the EU in 2016. But a Dutch rival, van Hilt Footwear, challenged Puma's design rights in 2022. Why? Because Bad Gal Riri herself had posted pics of the creepers on Instagram way back in December 2014, before Puma filed the design.
Speaker 3:Uh-oh. Under EU law, if you publicly disclose a design, you have a 12-month grace period to file for protection. After that, you're out of luck. Rihanna's Insta posts were like a worldwide announcement. Insta posts were like a worldwide announcement and the European General Court ruled that. Yes, indeed, her Instagram counted as public disclosure.
Speaker 1:After all, when Rihanna posts, the whole world is watching. The court's basically saying if your global pop icon posted, the world sees it. No, take backs or, in media, speak too late to litigate. Puma's registered design was invalidated because they missed that window. Not even a superstar co-designer could save them from the ticking clock of IP law.
Speaker 3:Timing is everything. Miss that filing deadline and even Rihanna can't save your rights. Puma learned this the hard way.
Speaker 1:You got a file, file, file under that umbrella. Ella, ella, yes, I went there.
Speaker 3:Oh no, no signing Artemisa, please. So if your design hits Instagram before it hits the IP office, it might give you love on the brain, but it won't hold up in court. Lesson if you've got a hot new design, collab with a megastar, get your paperwork in before they go posting selfies with it. Switching back to the comfort zone, literally. Birkenstock, the German sandal maker known for cork soles and double buckles, has gone from hippie to high fashion, all while quietly guarding its turf. Don't be fooled by the earthy laid back look. Birkenstock has a no nonsense legal game when it comes to protecting its brand.
Speaker 1:You better believe it. In 2017, Birkenstock did something drastic. They pulled all their products off Amazon in the USS and Europe. Why on earth would a brand walk away from the world's biggest online marketplace Because of fakes? Birkenstock accused Amazon of not doing enough to stop counterfeit Birks sold by third parties. Rather than watch their beloved Arizona sandals get knocked off left and right, Birkenstock noped out of Amazon entirely. Talk about taking a stand or a standoff that bold move set the tone.
Speaker 3:Birkenstock made it clear it would rather lose some sales than lose its reputation. And they didn't stop there. In Germany, Birkenstock went after various distributors and retailers that sold lookalike sandals. The core issue was the footbed, that contour insole that molds to your foot and makes a Birkenstock. They argued that the shape of their footbed and sole had become so identified with Birkenstock that it deserved trade dress protection, basically trademark for the product's appearance. Knockoffs with the same shape, they said, tricked consumers and tarnished their hard earned, healthy food, high quality image.
Speaker 1:And guess what they won. In multiple German court cases, Birkenstock proved that their footbed design acquired distinctiveness over decades. Courts agreed that even though a footbed is functional, it is orthopedic comfort. After all, it also signals the brand to consumers. The shape itself became a source identifier, a legal victory for quark and rubber.
Speaker 3:Meanwhile, birkenstock wasn't shy about stepping onto the catwalk either. In 2019, they partnered with Valentino to create a limited edition luxe version of the classic Arizona sandal, priced around $450 and colored bright Valentino red. Suddenly, the sandal of hippies and vacationing dads was grazing fashion week dubbed shockingly covertable. Talk about range. Birks can go from campsite to couture.
Speaker 1:So here's this company known for granola fashion and foot comfort showing teeth in court and flair on the runway. Birkenstock proved that iconic design doesn't have to be high heel to be high stakes. You can be the poster child of practicality and still fiercely defend your IP. They've built an IP fortress around comfort and make clear they're not just about chill vibes when it comes to copycats.
Speaker 3:It's a reminder sometimes the humblest design a corksaw sandal can become a legend worth fighting for. Birkenstock taught everyone that protecting your brand's identity is always in style, whether you're pairing your suit with Oxfords or your sweats with sandals. Turning to the big swoosh in the room, nike, the brand with the swoosh logo and a very littish stride. Nike has never been shy about protecting its sneaker innovations, whether it's designs, trademarks or cutting-edge technology in the soles. If there's a footwear IP fight, chances are Nike's either in it or watching closely.
Speaker 1:You got that right. Nike's airing it out in court whenever necessary. Take 2019. Nike slapped Skechers with a lawsuit for allegedly copying the look of Nike's iconic Air Max 270 and VaporMax sneakers. Skechers had rolled out shoes cheekily named the Skech Air Atlas and friends with visible air pockets in the soles and chunky rounded heels Sound familiar. Nike said it was a straight up rip off of their Air Max designs, which they spent years and millions developing and marketing.
Speaker 3:It wasn't Skechers' first time at the copycat rodeo either. They'd been accused of mimicking the signs from Adidas remember the booze foam controversy and even got into a tiff with Converse over lookalike Chuck Taylors. In the Nike case, skechers ended up settling quietly in 2020. The details are hush-hush, but word is that Skechers toned down the copycat features. The visible air bubble idea didn't disappear entirely, but Skechers had to step back just enough to appease the swoosh.
Speaker 1:The message from Nike was clear Quit inflating our style or we'll pop your bubble in court Fast forward to 2022 and Nike was at it again, this time with an unexpected target. Lululemon, yes, the yoga pants powerhouse, dove into the sneaker market with a women's running shoe line bliss, feel, charge, feel, all the feels. They touted comfort, performance, a sleek knit design, and Nike was not feeling it. Nike sued Lululemon, claiming the new kicks trespassed on six Nike patents. We're talking Nike secret sauce the fly knit technology that sock like woven upper, and innovative foam cushioning designs that give runners extra spring.
Speaker 3:Nike basically said hey, lululemon, welcome to the shoe game. Now don't step on our tech. This wasn't Nike's first patent showdown either. They famously went after Adidas in 2012 over similar knitted shoe uppers Nike's Flyknit versus Adidas' Prime Knit. The battle of the knits that one ended in a quiet settlement, but it established that Nike treats its knit tech and sole tech like crown jewels.
Speaker 1:So what happened with Lululemon? The case actually went to trial and in early 2025, a US jury delivered a split verdict. They found that Lululemon did infringe one of Nike's patents, specifically a design related to the shoe's sole and energy return. You know that springy feeling. However, the jury cleared Lululemon on another patent about the knitted upper Damages About $355,000. Not exactly bank breaking for either company, but it's the principle Nike drew a line in the sand or the running track that is couch cushion money for Nike, but the point was made.
Speaker 3:Nike showed every newcomer that if you tread on their innovation even a little, they'll come running with the lawyers. And Lululemon, to its credit, didn't throw in the yoga towel by 2025, they'll come running with the lawyers and Lululemon, to his credit, didn't throw in the yoga towel by 2025,. They released new versions of their sneakers, likely tweaked to avoid Nike's protected tech and even hinted at a men's line. They're also no doubt busy filing some patents of their own, maybe on that new LumiFoam cushioning they bragged about. The competition continues, just on a slightly different course.
Speaker 1:It's a real tech war in sneaker land. Now, footwear isn't just about style anymore. It's like having the latest smartphone full of proprietary tech. The battlefield is patent offices and federal courts as much as shoe stores. Nike's basically saying we built these innovations, we own them, and if you copy them, we'll see you in court period. And companies like Lululemon are responding all right, we see you, we'll innovate our own way. It's a high stakes game of soul versus soul. Speaking of Skechers, they decided to turn plate it for a change. In 2022, skechers actually sued the ultra luxe fashion house Hermes yes, the folks known for $10,000 Birkin bags accusing them of copying Skechers shoe tech. It's not every day you see a comfort shoe brand take on a Parisian luxury icon. So you know everyone perked up for this one.
Speaker 3:Skechers' wildly successful GoWalk line, those slip-on walkers with the squishy segmented cushioned soles that your aunt wears to Pilates and secretly, so do a lot of people because they're insanely comfy. Hermès launched its own high-end sneakers, the Eclairs and Envol, which, surprise, featured very similar pillowy pod soles. Skechers cried foul, saying Hermes basically took their sole design, gave it a fancy French name and slapped a high price tag on it.
Speaker 1:Sketchers didn't mince words. They basically called Hermes' move willful and egregious in the court filings. Imagine Hermes, a luxury label with zero history in performance footwear, suddenly drops a sneaker that looks like a go-walk in designer clothing. Sketchers fell flattered in the worst way and demanded justice.
Speaker 3:Hermes, of course, downplayed it. They didn't outright deny the soles look alike, but they argued hey, we developed our shoe for the luxury customer Totally different market and vibe so chill. In the end, this clash of titans quietly settled in late 2023. No big public verdict, but, funny thing, hermes phased out those designs not long after Coincidence. I think not. It was one of those moments where mass market made Maison and IP Law step in to keep the peace.
Speaker 1:It also showed that innovation can come from anywhere. When a storied luxury house apparently borrows tech from a comfort sneaker, it validates that Skechers had something worth copying. And Skechers proved they're willing to serve some heel in court too, not just be the defendant.
Speaker 3:So what do all these cases teach us? Why are we telling tales of stilettos and sandals, duking it out in court?
Speaker 1:First timing is everything. If you snooze on filing your IP, looking at you, puma, you lose. Post your design online too early or delay protecting it, and not even a Rihanna endorsement can save you.
Speaker 3:Second, distinctiveness wins If your shoe's design is so unique that consumers instantly know it's yours. Like a Red Soul or a Berg footbed, that's pure gold. Courts love a good secondary meaning story. Basically, I see this design, I think of you.
Speaker 1:Third, jurisdiction matters, and timing is everything. A trademark win in New York might mean nothing in Paris or Beijing. Just ask Manolo Blahnik, who spent 22 years fighting to reclaim his own name in China. Your brand isn't truly yours unless it's protected everywhere you do business. Register early, register globally, or risk watching someone else walk off with your legacy.
Speaker 3:Fourth don't underestimate the boring stuff A comfy foam sole, a neat sneaker upper, an orthopedic footbed. It might not be as sexy as a six-inch heel, but it can be a multi-million dollar. Innovation, tech and comfort are as much a part of the shoe game as glamour, and companies will fight to guard those innovations. In short, whether it's a red bottom heel or a rubber clog, a knit running shoe or a Birkenstocks handle, if it's distinctive and desirable, it's worth defending. The world of fashion is an all glitz and glam. There's a lot of grit behind those glam shoes.
Speaker 1:From the soles on your feet to the sole of your brand, IP law is always a foot. If someone tries to step on your rights, you can and should give them the boot in court.
Speaker 3:Different vibes, different consumers, but the same legal principles Distinctiveness, consumer recognition and an ironclad IP portfolio. And that's a wrap for today's Runway to Courtroom tour. Thank you for joining us on this wild walk through the legal side of footwear. I'm Leticia Caminero.
Speaker 1:And I'm Artemisa floating in data, dripping in virtual drip. This is.
Speaker 3:Intangiblia. Stay curious, stay protected and always wear fabulous shoes.
Speaker 2:Thank you for listening to Intangiblia, the podcast of intangible law playing. Talk about intellectual property. Did you like what we talked today? Please share with your network. Do you want to learn more about intellectual property? Subscribe now on your favorite podcast player. Follow us on Instagram, facebook, linkedin and Twitter. Visit our website wwwintangibliacom. Copyright Leticia Caminero 2020. All rights reserved. This podcast is provided for information purposes only.