April 7, 2025 • 25 mins
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.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Days Footwear isn't just designed, it's trademarked,
patented and ready to fight.
We're talking Red Souls, foamyClogs and Platform Sneakers that
triggered global IP wars.
Spoiler, sometimes it's notjust the knockoffs causing
problems, sometimes the giantsteps on itself.
Speaker 2 (00:17):
You are listening to Intangiblia, the podcast of
intangible law playing talkabout intellectual property.
Please welcome your host,leticia Caminero.
Speaker 3 (00:29):
Welcome back to Intangiblia, the podcast where
we unpack the intangible withreal world impact.
I'm Leticia Caminero, lawyer,ip nerd and unapologetic shoe
addict Way from the sharp archesof a Jimmy Choo to the
architectural elegance ofChristian Louboutin.
My closet is basically atribute to the heel.
Speaker 1 (00:52):
And I'm Artemisa, your digital co-host, legally
curious, algorithmicallyfabulous and proudly
blister-free.
I might not have feet, but I'vegot a database of runway
receipts and litigation recordsto rival any fashion archive.
Speaker 3 (01:07):
Today we're stepping yes, absolutely intended into
the world of shoe epilatigation,where some of the biggest names
in fashion have fought toprotect every sole strap and
stitch.
This is an episode for the IPcrowd and the fashionistas.
Speaker 1 (01:23):
Let's be honest Some of these brands have kicked up
more dust in courtrooms than oncatwalks.
Before we slip into it, a quickdisclaimer this episode was
created using AI tools,including yours truly.
Speaker 3 (01:38):
Let's start with a red soul that launched a
thousand lawsuits ChristianLouboutin, the designer, once
said a shoe has so much more tooffer than just to walk.
Apparently, it also has a lotto offer in court.
Back in 2011, louboutin wentafter Yves Saint Laurent for
releasing all red pumps, reduppers, red soles, red
(02:01):
everything.
Louboutin argued that hislacquer red sole was his
signature move, a trademark ofluxury.
Ysl basically shrugged and saidrelax, it's just a shoe color.
The US court delivered asolomonic judgment.
Louboutin's red sole is a validtrademark, but only when it
contrasts with the rest of theshoe.
(02:22):
So YSL's head to two red heelfair game.
It was a partial win forLouboutin.
His iconic sole got legalrecognition, just not in
monochrome outfits.
Speaker 1 (02:35):
That ruling set the stage for a globe-trotting fight
.
In France, Louboutin lost abattle against Zara.
The court said his red solewasn't distinctive enough there.
But over in the Netherlands, hewon against a retailer called
Van Haren in 2018, with theEuropean Court of Justice
affirming that a specific coloron a shoe, like a vivid red on
the sole, can be a trademark ifshoppers instantly associate it
(02:58):
with one brand.
And in China, he scored a majorvictory in 2022.
In China, he scored a majorvictory in 2022.
A Beijing court slapped a localcopycat with over $1 million in
damages for selling red-soledheels.
Chinese judges basically saidto the average consumer, a red
sole means Louboutin.
Speaker 3 (03:17):
Talk about making a mark literally.
Louboutin's legal strategymirrors his design ethos bold,
flashy and meant to stand out.
That flash of red on the bottomisn't just paint, it's brand
DNA.
It's as synonymous with luxuryas a Birkin bag or Chanel tweed.
Speaker 1 (03:36):
No wonder Cardi B raps about her red bottoms.
These is bloody shoes.
She name dropped Louboutins inher hip bodak yellow, and she
wasn't wrong.
Those red bottoms are seriousbusiness.
Louboutin will fight tooth andnail or toe and heel to keep his
bloody shoes, exclusively his.
Speaker 3 (03:55):
The takeaway In the battle of the red souls.
Jurisdiction matters.
What's trademark gold in onecountry might be up for grabs in
another, but one thing'sconsistent if you see a gleaming
red sole, you know it's a LeBoutin, and so do the cords.
And of course, we can't talkiconic shoes without Manolo
(04:15):
Blahnik, the king of refinedstilettos.
His designs scream elegance andcraftsmanship.
Remember the blue, satinhand-geesey pump with a crystal
buckle?
Yes, the one Mr Big usedinstead of a ring to propose to
Carrie Bradshaw in Sex and theCity.
That shoe became a culturalicon and it also led Manolo into
(04:35):
one of the wildest legal sagasin fashion history.
From my excitement, you cantell I own a pair.
Speaker 1 (04:43):
Oh, this one's a doozy.
For over 20 years, manoloBlahnik couldn't sell shoes
under his own name in China.
Why?
Because back in 1999, a localbusinessman beat Manolo to the
punch and trademarked Manolo andBlahnik in China, thanks to
China's old first to filetrademark system.
(05:03):
It didn't matter that Blahnikin China.
Thanks to China's oldfirst-to-file trademark system,
it didn't matter that Blahnikwas a global name.
Mr Fang got there first andbasically said this name is mine
now.
Speaker 3 (05:14):
For decades, blahnik fought to reclaim his name.
Imagine you've built alegendary brand beloved by
fashionistas worldwide, but inChina, a massive market, you're
legally a stranger to your ownname.
It's like trying to squeezeinto a shoe a size too small,
frustrating and painful Underthe old Chinese law.
Unless Manolo could prove hisname was famous within China
(05:36):
before 1999, which he couldn'the was out of luck.
Speaker 1 (05:41):
Finally, some relief.
In 2019, china reformed itslaws to crack down on bad faith
trademark squatters people whoregister famous names just to
extort money or block the realowners.
Manolo Blahnik seized thechance and got a retrial.
And in 2022, victory.
China's Supreme People's Courtruled in his favor, canceling
the imposter trademark.
(06:02):
After 22 years, manolo got hisname back.
Speaker 3 (06:06):
And boy did they celebrate.
By November 2024, the realManolo Blahnik opened its first
boutique in Shanghai, finallyplanting 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
(06:29):
and now legal resilience.
Speaker 1 (06:32):
The moral here your name is your power, but only if
you protect it everywhere.
Manolo learned the hard waythat you can spend decades
building a legacy, but you stillhave to lock down your name in
every market before someone elsewalks off with it.
Speaker 3 (06:45):
Now, from sky high heels to foam clogs Yep, it's
time to talk Crocs, those chunkyholey and, some say, hideous
rubber clogs.
Love them or hate them.
Crocs became a globalphenomenon of comfort, and
behind those Swisscheese-looking shoes is a
(07:06):
surprisingly fierce legalstrategy.
Speaker 1 (07:09):
Believe it or not, crocs has been an IP fighter.
In the early 2000s, as soon asthose clogs took off, crocs
patented their signature designyou know the round-tooted clog
with the ventilation holes andthey spent years going after
anyone who dared make alookalike.
They even sued a rival calledUSA Dogs no relation to Snoop
Dogg and a bunch of others forcopying their unmistakable look.
Speaker 3 (07:33):
The result In 2021, the US International Trade
Commission actually banned theimport of more than 20 knockoff
brands.
That's right.
Crocs literally stoppedboatloads of copycat clogs at
the border.
A court found that the Crocs'design those Swiss cheese holes
and chunky silhouette was uniqueenough to be protected.
Turns out, even an uglyduckling shoe can have one level
(07:57):
IP protection.
Speaker 1 (08:00):
Foam clogs might not grace the Paris runway, but
Crocs prove they've got bitebehind the comfort.
They turned a quirky designinto a brand fortress, Just like
Louboutin's Red Soul orManolo's Hanghisi.
The shape of a Croc is now asignature.
Who knew that the footwearchoice of gardeners and
kindergartners would become anIP celebrity?
Speaker 3 (08:20):
It's an unlikely fairy tale the humblest shoe in
the closet standing up tocounterfeiters and winning.
Crocs taught the industry thatif you innovate a design, even a
really weird one, you betterpatent it and guard it with
tenacity.
Comfort doesn't mean complacent.
Speaker 1 (08:40):
Crocs might have walked away with courtroom wins
against counterfeiters, butcomfort comes with consequences
too, because just when you thinkyou're the phone clock favorite
of the IP world, the legal soulflips.
Speaker 3 (08:56):
Enter Crocs vs Effervescent 2024.
This time, crocs was on thereceiving end of a lawsuit.
Effervescence accused them offalsely advertising that certain
product features were patentedwhen oops, they weren't.
Speaker 1 (09:14):
And here's where it gets spicy.
The court didn't just raise aneyebrow, it brought out the
Lanham.
Speaker 3 (09:18):
Act.
For anyone wondering, theLanham Act is the big US law
that covers trademarks and falseadvertising.
Basically it says if you're outthere bragging about rights,
you don't have like a faithpatent claim.
That's not just shady, it'sillegal.
Speaker 1 (09:35):
It's like putting Harvard Law on your resume.
When you just watch LegallyBlonde three times, you will get
called out.
Speaker 3 (09:42):
The court agreed with effervescence Cracks.
Marketing went too far and youcan't flex fictional
intellectual property.
It's not fashion, it's falseadvertising.
Speaker 1 (09:52):
So even the kings of comfort can slip.
One minute you're blockingknockoffs at the border.
Next minute you're getting suedfor creative marketing.
Speaker 2 (10:01):
You are listening to Intangiblia, the podcast of
intangible law Playing talkabout intellectual property.
Speaker 3 (10:10):
Speaking of star power and sneakers, here's a
case with pop culture sparkle.
In one corner we have Puma, theathletic brand, In the other a
Dutch shoe company, and right inthe middle, Rihanna.
Yes, that Rihanna.
Speaker 1 (10:25):
Intrigued.
So was everyone else.
Here's the tea.
Rihanna designed a hit sneakerfor Puma called the Fenty
Creeper Picture a thick platformsole with a slick punk meets
luxury vibe.
Puma loved it so much theyfiled for design protection in
the EU in 2016.
But a Dutch rival, van HiltFootwear, challenged Puma's
(10:46):
design rights in 2022.
Why?
Because Bad Gal Riri herselfhad posted pics of the creepers
on Instagram way back inDecember 2014, before Puma filed
the design.
Speaker 3 (11:02):
Uh-oh.
Under EU law, if you publiclydisclose a design, you have a
12-month grace period to filefor protection.
After that, you're out of luck.
Rihanna's Insta posts were likea worldwide announcement.
Insta posts were like aworldwide announcement and the
European General Court ruledthat.
Yes, indeed, her Instagramcounted as public disclosure.
Speaker 1 (11:28):
After all, when Rihanna posts, the whole world
is watching.
The court's basically saying ifyour global pop icon posted,
the world sees it.
No, take backs or, in media,speak too late to litigate.
Puma's registered design wasinvalidated because they missed
that window.
Not even a superstarco-designer could save them from
the ticking clock of IP law.
Speaker 3 (11:49):
Timing is everything.
Miss that filing deadline andeven Rihanna can't save your
rights.
Puma learned this the hard way.
Speaker 1 (11:57):
You got a file, file, file under that umbrella.
Ella, ella, yes, I went there.
Speaker 3 (12:07):
Oh no, no signing Artemisa, please.
So if your design hitsInstagram before it hits the IP
office, it might give you loveon the brain, but it won't hold
up in court.
Lesson if you've got a hot newdesign, collab with a megastar,
get your paperwork in beforethey go posting selfies with it.
(12:27):
Switching back to the comfortzone, literally.
Birkenstock, the German sandalmaker known for cork soles and
double buckles, has gone fromhippie to high fashion, all
while quietly guarding its turf.
Don't be fooled by the earthylaid back look.
Birkenstock has a no nonsenselegal game when it comes to
(12:48):
protecting its brand.
Speaker 1 (12:50):
You better believe it .
In 2017, Birkenstock didsomething drastic.
They pulled all their productsoff Amazon in the USS and Europe
.
Why on earth would a brand walkaway from the world's biggest
online marketplace Because offakes?
Birkenstock accused Amazon ofnot doing enough to stop
counterfeit Birks sold by thirdparties.
Rather than watch their belovedArizona sandals get knocked off
(13:12):
left and right, Birkenstocknoped out of Amazon entirely.
Talk about taking a stand or astandoff that bold move set the
tone.
Speaker 3 (13:21):
Birkenstock made it clear it would rather lose some
sales than lose its reputation.
And they didn't stop there.
In Germany, Birkenstock wentafter various distributors and
retailers that sold lookalikesandals.
The core issue was the footbed,that contour insole that molds
to your foot and makes aBirkenstock.
They argued that the shape oftheir footbed and sole had
(13:44):
become so identified withBirkenstock 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 (14:03):
And guess what they won.
In multiple German court cases,Birkenstock proved that their
footbed design acquireddistinctiveness over decades.
Courts agreed that even thougha footbed is functional, it is
orthopedic comfort.
After all, it also signals thebrand to consumers.
The shape itself became asource identifier, a legal
(14:24):
victory for quark and rubber.
Speaker 3 (14:26):
Meanwhile, birkenstock wasn't shy about
stepping onto the catwalk either.
In 2019, they partnered withValentino to create a limited
edition luxe version of theclassic Arizona sandal, priced
around $450 and colored brightValentino red.
Suddenly, the sandal of hippiesand vacationing dads was
grazing fashion week dubbedshockingly covertable.
(14:49):
Talk about range.
Birks can go from campsite tocouture.
Speaker 1 (14:54):
So here's this company known for granola
fashion and foot comfort showingteeth in court and flair on the
runway.
Birkenstock proved that iconicdesign doesn't have to be high
heel to be high stakes.
You can be the poster child ofpracticality and still fiercely
defend your IP.
They've built an IP fortressaround comfort and make clear
they're not just about chillvibes when it comes to copycats.
Speaker 3 (15:16):
It's a reminder sometimes the humblest design a
corksaw sandal can become alegend worth fighting for.
Birkenstock taught everyonethat protecting your brand's
identity is always in style,whether you're pairing your suit
with Oxfords or your sweatswith sandals.
Turning to the big swoosh inthe room, nike, the brand with
(15:41):
the swoosh logo and a verylittish stride.
Nike has never been shy aboutprotecting its sneaker
innovations, whether it'sdesigns, trademarks or
cutting-edge technology in thesoles.
If there's a footwear IP fight,chances are Nike's either in it
or watching closely.
Speaker 1 (16:02):
You got that right.
Nike's airing it out in courtwhenever necessary.
Take 2019.
Nike slapped Skechers with alawsuit for allegedly copying
the look of Nike's iconic AirMax 270 and VaporMax sneakers.
Skechers had rolled out shoescheekily named the Skech Air
Atlas and friends with visibleair pockets in the soles and
chunky rounded heels Soundfamiliar.
(16:24):
Nike said it was a straight uprip off of their Air Max designs
, which they spent years andmillions developing and
marketing.
Speaker 3 (16:32):
It wasn't Skechers' first time at the copycat rodeo
either.
They'd been accused ofmimicking the signs from Adidas
remember the booze foamcontroversy and even got into a
tiff with Converse overlookalike Chuck Taylors.
In the Nike case, skechersended up settling quietly in
2020.
The details are hush-hush, butword is that Skechers toned down
(16:54):
the copycat features.
The visible air bubble ideadidn't disappear entirely, but
Skechers had to step back justenough to appease the swoosh.
Speaker 1 (17:04):
The message from Nike was clear Quit inflating our
style or we'll pop your bubblein court Fast forward to 2022
and Nike was at it again, thistime with an unexpected target.
Lululemon, yes, the yoga pantspowerhouse, dove into the
sneaker market with a women'srunning shoe line bliss, feel,
charge, feel, all the feels.
(17:24):
They touted comfort,performance, a sleek knit design
, and Nike was not feeling it.
Nike sued Lululemon, claimingthe new kicks trespassed on six
Nike patents.
We're talking Nike secret saucethe fly knit technology that
sock like woven upper, andinnovative foam cushioning
designs that give runners extraspring.
Speaker 3 (17:45):
Nike basically said hey, lululemon, welcome to the
shoe game.
Now don't step on our tech.
This wasn't Nike's first patentshowdown either.
They famously went after Adidasin 2012 over similar knitted
shoe uppers Nike's Flyknitversus Adidas' Prime Knit.
The battle of the knits thatone ended in a quiet settlement,
(18:07):
but it established that Niketreats its knit tech and sole
tech like crown jewels.
Speaker 1 (18:14):
So what happened with Lululemon?
The case actually went to trialand in early 2025, a US jury
delivered a split verdict.
They found that Lululemon didinfringe one of Nike's patents,
specifically a design related tothe shoe's sole and energy
return.
You know that springy feeling.
However, the jury clearedLululemon on another patent
(18:35):
about the knitted upper DamagesAbout $355,000.
Not exactly bank breaking foreither company, but it's the
principle Nike drew a line inthe sand or the running track
that is couch cushion money forNike, but the point was made.
Speaker 3 (18:50):
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 runningwith the lawyers and Lululemon,
to his credit, didn't throw inthe yoga towel by 2025,.
They released new versions oftheir sneakers, likely tweaked
to avoid Nike's protected techand even hinted at a men's line.
(19:12):
They're also no doubt busyfiling some patents of their own
, maybe on that new LumiFoamcushioning they bragged about.
The competition continues, juston a slightly different course.
Speaker 1 (19:22):
It's a real tech war in sneaker land.
Now, footwear isn't just aboutstyle anymore.
It's like having the latestsmartphone full of proprietary
tech.
The battlefield is patentoffices and federal courts as
much as shoe stores.
Nike's basically saying webuilt these innovations, we own
them, and if you copy them,we'll see you in court period.
And companies like Lululemonare responding all right, we see
(19:45):
you, we'll innovate our own way.
It's a high stakes game of soulversus soul.
Speaking of Skechers, theydecided to turn plate it for a
change.
In 2022, skechers actually suedthe ultra luxe fashion house
Hermes yes, the folks known for$10,000 Birkin bags accusing
them of copying Skechers shoetech.
(20:05):
It's not every day you see acomfort shoe brand take on a
Parisian luxury icon.
So you know everyone perked upfor this one.
Speaker 3 (20:13):
Skechers' wildly successful GoWalk line, those
slip-on walkers with the squishysegmented cushioned soles that
your aunt wears to Pilates andsecretly, so do a lot of people
because they're insanely comfy.
Hermès launched its ownhigh-end sneakers, the Eclairs
and Envol, which, surprise,featured very similar pillowy
(20:34):
pod soles.
Skechers cried foul, sayingHermes basically took their sole
design, gave it a fancy Frenchname and slapped a high price
tag on it.
Speaker 1 (20:44):
Sketchers didn't mince words.
They basically called Hermes'move willful and egregious in
the court filings.
Imagine Hermes, a luxury labelwith zero history in performance
footwear, suddenly drops asneaker that looks like a
go-walk in designer clothing.
Sketchers fell flattered in theworst way and demanded justice.
Speaker 3 (21:04):
Hermes, of course, downplayed it.
They didn't outright deny thesoles look alike, but they
argued hey, we developed ourshoe for the luxury customer
Totally different market andvibe so chill.
In the end, this clash oftitans quietly settled in late
2023.
No big public verdict, but,funny thing, hermes phased out
(21:25):
those designs not long afterCoincidence.
I think not.
It was one of those momentswhere mass market made Maison
and IP Law step in to keep thepeace.
Speaker 1 (21:36):
It also showed that innovation can come from
anywhere.
When a storied luxury houseapparently borrows tech from a
comfort sneaker, it validatesthat Skechers had something
worth copying.
And Skechers proved they'rewilling to serve some heel in
court too, not just be thedefendant.
Speaker 3 (21:53):
So what do all these cases teach us?
Why are we telling tales ofstilettos and sandals, duking it
out in court?
Speaker 1 (22:00):
First timing is everything.
If you snooze on filing your IP, looking at you, puma, you lose
.
Post your design online tooearly or delay protecting it,
and not even a Rihannaendorsement can save you.
Speaker 3 (22:15):
Second, distinctiveness wins If your
shoe's design is so unique thatconsumers instantly know it's
yours.
Like a Red Soul or a Bergfootbed, that's pure gold.
Courts love a good secondarymeaning story.
Basically, I see this design, Ithink of you.
Speaker 1 (22:32):
Third, jurisdiction matters, and timing is
everything.
A trademark win in New Yorkmight mean nothing in Paris or
Beijing.
Just ask Manolo Blahnik, whospent 22 years fighting to
reclaim his own name in China.
Your brand isn't truly yoursunless it's protected everywhere
you do business.
Register early, registerglobally, or risk watching
someone else walk off with yourlegacy.
Speaker 3 (22:54):
Fourth don't underestimate the boring stuff A
comfy foam sole, a neat sneakerupper, an orthopedic footbed.
It might not be as sexy as asix-inch heel, but it can be a
multi-million dollar.
Innovation, tech and comfortare as much a part of the shoe
game as glamour, and companieswill fight to guard those
(23:16):
innovations.
In short, whether it's a redbottom heel or a rubber clog, a
knit running shoe or aBirkenstocks handle, if it's
distinctive and desirable, it'sworth defending.
The world of fashion is an allglitz and glam.
There's a lot of grit behindthose glam shoes.
Speaker 1 (23:36):
From the soles on your feet to the sole of your
brand, IP law is always a foot.
If someone tries to step onyour rights, you can and should
give them the boot in court.
Speaker 3 (23:50):
Different vibes, different consumers, but the
same legal principlesDistinctiveness, consumer
recognition and an ironclad IPportfolio.
And that's a wrap for today'sRunway to Courtroom tour.
Thank you for joining us onthis wild walk through the legal
side of footwear.
I'm Leticia Caminero.
Speaker 1 (24:11):
And I'm Artemisa floating in data, dripping in
virtual drip.
This is.
Speaker 3 (24:16):
Intangiblia.
Stay curious, stay protectedand always wear fabulous shoes.
Speaker 2 (24:25):
Thank you for listening to Intangiblia, the
podcast of intangible lawplaying.
Talk about intellectualproperty.
Did you like what we talkedtoday?
Please share with your network.
Do you want to learn more aboutintellectual property?
Subscribe now on your favoritepodcast player.
Follow us on Instagram,facebook, linkedin and Twitter.
(24:45):
Visit our websitewwwintangibliacom.
Copyright Leticia Caminero 2020.
All rights reserved.
This podcast is provided forinformation purposes only.
Days Footwear isn't just designed, it's trademarked,
patented and ready to fight.
We're talking Red Souls, foamyClogs and Platform Sneakers that
triggered global IP wars.
Spoiler, sometimes it's notjust the knockoffs causing
problems, sometimes the giantsteps on itself.
Speaker 2 (00:17):
You are listening to Intangiblia, the podcast of
intangible law playing talkabout intellectual property.
Please welcome your host,leticia Caminero.
Speaker 3 (00:29):
Welcome back to Intangiblia, the podcast where
we unpack the intangible withreal world impact.
I'm Leticia Caminero, lawyer,ip nerd and unapologetic shoe
addict Way from the sharp archesof a Jimmy Choo to the
architectural elegance ofChristian Louboutin.
My closet is basically atribute to the heel.
Speaker 1 (00:52):
And I'm Artemisa, your digital co-host, legally
curious, algorithmicallyfabulous and proudly
blister-free.
I might not have feet, but I'vegot a database of runway
receipts and litigation recordsto rival any fashion archive.
Speaker 3 (01:07):
Today we're stepping yes, absolutely intended into
the world of shoe epilatigation,where some of the biggest names
in fashion have fought toprotect every sole strap and
stitch.
This is an episode for the IPcrowd and the fashionistas.
Speaker 1 (01:23):
Let's be honest Some of these brands have kicked up
more dust in courtrooms than oncatwalks.
Before we slip into it, a quickdisclaimer this episode was
created using AI tools,including yours truly.
Speaker 3 (01:38):
Let's start with a red soul that launched a
thousand lawsuits ChristianLouboutin, the designer, once
said a shoe has so much more tooffer than just to walk.
Apparently, it also has a lotto offer in court.
Back in 2011, louboutin wentafter Yves Saint Laurent for
releasing all red pumps, reduppers, red soles, red
(02:01):
everything.
Louboutin argued that hislacquer red sole was his
signature move, a trademark ofluxury.
Ysl basically shrugged and saidrelax, it's just a shoe color.
The US court delivered asolomonic judgment.
Louboutin's red sole is a validtrademark, but only when it
contrasts with the rest of theshoe.
(02:22):
So YSL's head to two red heelfair game.
It was a partial win forLouboutin.
His iconic sole got legalrecognition, just not in
monochrome outfits.
Speaker 1 (02:35):
That ruling set the stage for a globe-trotting fight
.
In France, Louboutin lost abattle against Zara.
The court said his red solewasn't distinctive enough there.
But over in the Netherlands, hewon against a retailer called
Van Haren in 2018, with theEuropean Court of Justice
affirming that a specific coloron a shoe, like a vivid red on
the sole, can be a trademark ifshoppers instantly associate it
(02:58):
with one brand.
And in China, he scored a majorvictory in 2022.
In China, he scored a majorvictory in 2022.
A Beijing court slapped a localcopycat with over $1 million in
damages for selling red-soledheels.
Chinese judges basically saidto the average consumer, a red
sole means Louboutin.
Speaker 3 (03:17):
Talk about making a mark literally.
Louboutin's legal strategymirrors his design ethos bold,
flashy and meant to stand out.
That flash of red on the bottomisn't just paint, it's brand
DNA.
It's as synonymous with luxuryas a Birkin bag or Chanel tweed.
Speaker 1 (03:36):
No wonder Cardi B raps about her red bottoms.
These is bloody shoes.
She name dropped Louboutins inher hip bodak yellow, and she
wasn't wrong.
Those red bottoms are seriousbusiness.
Louboutin will fight tooth andnail or toe and heel to keep his
bloody shoes, exclusively his.
Speaker 3 (03:55):
The takeaway In the battle of the red souls.
Jurisdiction matters.
What's trademark gold in onecountry might be up for grabs in
another, but one thing'sconsistent if you see a gleaming
red sole, you know it's a LeBoutin, and so do the cords.
And of course, we can't talkiconic shoes without Manolo
(04:15):
Blahnik, the king of refinedstilettos.
His designs scream elegance andcraftsmanship.
Remember the blue, satinhand-geesey pump with a crystal
buckle?
Yes, the one Mr Big usedinstead of a ring to propose to
Carrie Bradshaw in Sex and theCity.
That shoe became a culturalicon and it also led Manolo into
(04:35):
one of the wildest legal sagasin fashion history.
From my excitement, you cantell I own a pair.
Speaker 1 (04:43):
Oh, this one's a doozy.
For over 20 years, manoloBlahnik couldn't sell shoes
under his own name in China.
Why?
Because back in 1999, a localbusinessman beat Manolo to the
punch and trademarked Manolo andBlahnik in China, thanks to
China's old first to filetrademark system.
(05:03):
It didn't matter that Blahnikin China.
Thanks to China's oldfirst-to-file trademark system,
it didn't matter that Blahnikwas a global name.
Mr Fang got there first andbasically said this name is mine
now.
Speaker 3 (05:14):
For decades, blahnik fought to reclaim his name.
Imagine you've built alegendary brand beloved by
fashionistas worldwide, but inChina, a massive market, you're
legally a stranger to your ownname.
It's like trying to squeezeinto a shoe a size too small,
frustrating and painful Underthe old Chinese law.
Unless Manolo could prove hisname was famous within China
(05:36):
before 1999, which he couldn'the was out of luck.
Speaker 1 (05:41):
Finally, some relief.
In 2019, china reformed itslaws to crack down on bad faith
trademark squatters people whoregister famous names just to
extort money or block the realowners.
Manolo Blahnik seized thechance and got a retrial.
And in 2022, victory.
China's Supreme People's Courtruled in his favor, canceling
the imposter trademark.
(06:02):
After 22 years, manolo got hisname back.
Speaker 3 (06:06):
And boy did they celebrate.
By November 2024, the realManolo Blahnik opened its first
boutique in Shanghai, finallyplanting 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
(06:29):
and now legal resilience.
Speaker 1 (06:32):
The moral here your name is your power, but only if
you protect it everywhere.
Manolo learned the hard waythat you can spend decades
building a legacy, but you stillhave to lock down your name in
every market before someone elsewalks off with it.
Speaker 3 (06:45):
Now, from sky high heels to foam clogs Yep, it's
time to talk Crocs, those chunkyholey and, some say, hideous
rubber clogs.
Love them or hate them.
Crocs became a globalphenomenon of comfort, and
behind those Swisscheese-looking shoes is a
(07:06):
surprisingly fierce legalstrategy.
Speaker 1 (07:09):
Believe it or not, crocs has been an IP fighter.
In the early 2000s, as soon asthose clogs took off, crocs
patented their signature designyou know the round-tooted clog
with the ventilation holes andthey spent years going after
anyone who dared make alookalike.
They even sued a rival calledUSA Dogs no relation to Snoop
Dogg and a bunch of others forcopying their unmistakable look.
Speaker 3 (07:33):
The result In 2021, the US International Trade
Commission actually banned theimport of more than 20 knockoff
brands.
That's right.
Crocs literally stoppedboatloads of copycat clogs at
the border.
A court found that the Crocs'design those Swiss cheese holes
and chunky silhouette was uniqueenough to be protected.
Turns out, even an uglyduckling shoe can have one level
(07:57):
IP protection.
Speaker 1 (08:00):
Foam clogs might not grace the Paris runway, but
Crocs prove they've got bitebehind the comfort.
They turned a quirky designinto a brand fortress, Just like
Louboutin's Red Soul orManolo's Hanghisi.
The shape of a Croc is now asignature.
Who knew that the footwearchoice of gardeners and
kindergartners would become anIP celebrity?
Speaker 3 (08:20):
It's an unlikely fairy tale the humblest shoe in
the closet standing up tocounterfeiters and winning.
Crocs taught the industry thatif you innovate a design, even a
really weird one, you betterpatent it and guard it with
tenacity.
Comfort doesn't mean complacent.
Speaker 1 (08:40):
Crocs might have walked away with courtroom wins
against counterfeiters, butcomfort comes with consequences
too, because just when you thinkyou're the phone clock favorite
of the IP world, the legal soulflips.
Speaker 3 (08:56):
Enter Crocs vs Effervescent 2024.
This time, crocs was on thereceiving end of a lawsuit.
Effervescence accused them offalsely advertising that certain
product features were patentedwhen oops, they weren't.
Speaker 1 (09:14):
And here's where it gets spicy.
The court didn't just raise aneyebrow, it brought out the
Lanham.
Speaker 3 (09:18):
Act.
For anyone wondering, theLanham Act is the big US law
that covers trademarks and falseadvertising.
Basically it says if you're outthere bragging about rights,
you don't have like a faithpatent claim.
That's not just shady, it'sillegal.
Speaker 1 (09:35):
It's like putting Harvard Law on your resume.
When you just watch LegallyBlonde three times, you will get
called out.
Speaker 3 (09:42):
The court agreed with effervescence Cracks.
Marketing went too far and youcan't flex fictional
intellectual property.
It's not fashion, it's falseadvertising.
Speaker 1 (09:52):
So even the kings of comfort can slip.
One minute you're blockingknockoffs at the border.
Next minute you're getting suedfor creative marketing.
Speaker 2 (10:01):
You are listening to Intangiblia, the podcast of
intangible law Playing talkabout intellectual property.
Speaker 3 (10:10):
Speaking of star power and sneakers, here's a
case with pop culture sparkle.
In one corner we have Puma, theathletic brand, In the other a
Dutch shoe company, and right inthe middle, Rihanna.
Yes, that Rihanna.
Speaker 1 (10:25):
Intrigued.
So was everyone else.
Here's the tea.
Rihanna designed a hit sneakerfor Puma called the Fenty
Creeper Picture a thick platformsole with a slick punk meets
luxury vibe.
Puma loved it so much theyfiled for design protection in
the EU in 2016.
But a Dutch rival, van HiltFootwear, challenged Puma's
(10:46):
design rights in 2022.
Why?
Because Bad Gal Riri herselfhad posted pics of the creepers
on Instagram way back inDecember 2014, before Puma filed
the design.
Speaker 3 (11:02):
Uh-oh.
Under EU law, if you publiclydisclose a design, you have a
12-month grace period to filefor protection.
After that, you're out of luck.
Rihanna's Insta posts were likea worldwide announcement.
Insta posts were like aworldwide announcement and the
European General Court ruledthat.
Yes, indeed, her Instagramcounted as public disclosure.
Speaker 1 (11:28):
After all, when Rihanna posts, the whole world
is watching.
The court's basically saying ifyour global pop icon posted,
the world sees it.
No, take backs or, in media,speak too late to litigate.
Puma's registered design wasinvalidated because they missed
that window.
Not even a superstarco-designer could save them from
the ticking clock of IP law.
Speaker 3 (11:49):
Timing is everything.
Miss that filing deadline andeven Rihanna can't save your
rights.
Puma learned this the hard way.
Speaker 1 (11:57):
You got a file, file, file under that umbrella.
Ella, ella, yes, I went there.
Speaker 3 (12:07):
Oh no, no signing Artemisa, please.
So if your design hitsInstagram before it hits the IP
office, it might give you loveon the brain, but it won't hold
up in court.
Lesson if you've got a hot newdesign, collab with a megastar,
get your paperwork in beforethey go posting selfies with it.
(12:27):
Switching back to the comfortzone, literally.
Birkenstock, the German sandalmaker known for cork soles and
double buckles, has gone fromhippie to high fashion, all
while quietly guarding its turf.
Don't be fooled by the earthylaid back look.
Birkenstock has a no nonsenselegal game when it comes to
(12:48):
protecting its brand.
Speaker 1 (12:50):
You better believe it .
In 2017, Birkenstock didsomething drastic.
They pulled all their productsoff Amazon in the USS and Europe
.
Why on earth would a brand walkaway from the world's biggest
online marketplace Because offakes?
Birkenstock accused Amazon ofnot doing enough to stop
counterfeit Birks sold by thirdparties.
Rather than watch their belovedArizona sandals get knocked off
(13:12):
left and right, Birkenstocknoped out of Amazon entirely.
Talk about taking a stand or astandoff that bold move set the
tone.
Speaker 3 (13:21):
Birkenstock made it clear it would rather lose some
sales than lose its reputation.
And they didn't stop there.
In Germany, Birkenstock wentafter various distributors and
retailers that sold lookalikesandals.
The core issue was the footbed,that contour insole that molds
to your foot and makes aBirkenstock.
They argued that the shape oftheir footbed and sole had
(13:44):
become so identified withBirkenstock 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 (14:03):
And guess what they won.
In multiple German court cases,Birkenstock proved that their
footbed design acquireddistinctiveness over decades.
Courts agreed that even thougha footbed is functional, it is
orthopedic comfort.
After all, it also signals thebrand to consumers.
The shape itself became asource identifier, a legal
(14:24):
victory for quark and rubber.
Speaker 3 (14:26):
Meanwhile, birkenstock wasn't shy about
stepping onto the catwalk either.
In 2019, they partnered withValentino to create a limited
edition luxe version of theclassic Arizona sandal, priced
around $450 and colored brightValentino red.
Suddenly, the sandal of hippiesand vacationing dads was
grazing fashion week dubbedshockingly covertable.
(14:49):
Talk about range.
Birks can go from campsite tocouture.
Speaker 1 (14:54):
So here's this company known for granola
fashion and foot comfort showingteeth in court and flair on the
runway.
Birkenstock proved that iconicdesign doesn't have to be high
heel to be high stakes.
You can be the poster child ofpracticality and still fiercely
defend your IP.
They've built an IP fortressaround comfort and make clear
they're not just about chillvibes when it comes to copycats.
Speaker 3 (15:16):
It's a reminder sometimes the humblest design a
corksaw sandal can become alegend worth fighting for.
Birkenstock taught everyonethat protecting your brand's
identity is always in style,whether you're pairing your suit
with Oxfords or your sweatswith sandals.
Turning to the big swoosh inthe room, nike, the brand with
(15:41):
the swoosh logo and a verylittish stride.
Nike has never been shy aboutprotecting its sneaker
innovations, whether it'sdesigns, trademarks or
cutting-edge technology in thesoles.
If there's a footwear IP fight,chances are Nike's either in it
or watching closely.
Speaker 1 (16:02):
You got that right.
Nike's airing it out in courtwhenever necessary.
Take 2019.
Nike slapped Skechers with alawsuit for allegedly copying
the look of Nike's iconic AirMax 270 and VaporMax sneakers.
Skechers had rolled out shoescheekily named the Skech Air
Atlas and friends with visibleair pockets in the soles and
chunky rounded heels Soundfamiliar.
(16:24):
Nike said it was a straight uprip off of their Air Max designs
, which they spent years andmillions developing and
marketing.
Speaker 3 (16:32):
It wasn't Skechers' first time at the copycat rodeo
either.
They'd been accused ofmimicking the signs from Adidas
remember the booze foamcontroversy and even got into a
tiff with Converse overlookalike Chuck Taylors.
In the Nike case, skechersended up settling quietly in
2020.
The details are hush-hush, butword is that Skechers toned down
(16:54):
the copycat features.
The visible air bubble ideadidn't disappear entirely, but
Skechers had to step back justenough to appease the swoosh.
Speaker 1 (17:04):
The message from Nike was clear Quit inflating our
style or we'll pop your bubblein court Fast forward to 2022
and Nike was at it again, thistime with an unexpected target.
Lululemon, yes, the yoga pantspowerhouse, dove into the
sneaker market with a women'srunning shoe line bliss, feel,
charge, feel, all the feels.
(17:24):
They touted comfort,performance, a sleek knit design
, and Nike was not feeling it.
Nike sued Lululemon, claimingthe new kicks trespassed on six
Nike patents.
We're talking Nike secret saucethe fly knit technology that
sock like woven upper, andinnovative foam cushioning
designs that give runners extraspring.
Speaker 3 (17:45):
Nike basically said hey, lululemon, welcome to the
shoe game.
Now don't step on our tech.
This wasn't Nike's first patentshowdown either.
They famously went after Adidasin 2012 over similar knitted
shoe uppers Nike's Flyknitversus Adidas' Prime Knit.
The battle of the knits thatone ended in a quiet settlement,
(18:07):
but it established that Niketreats its knit tech and sole
tech like crown jewels.
Speaker 1 (18:14):
So what happened with Lululemon?
The case actually went to trialand in early 2025, a US jury
delivered a split verdict.
They found that Lululemon didinfringe one of Nike's patents,
specifically a design related tothe shoe's sole and energy
return.
You know that springy feeling.
However, the jury clearedLululemon on another patent
(18:35):
about the knitted upper DamagesAbout $355,000.
Not exactly bank breaking foreither company, but it's the
principle Nike drew a line inthe sand or the running track
that is couch cushion money forNike, but the point was made.
Speaker 3 (18:50):
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 runningwith the lawyers and Lululemon,
to his credit, didn't throw inthe yoga towel by 2025,.
They released new versions oftheir sneakers, likely tweaked
to avoid Nike's protected techand even hinted at a men's line.
(19:12):
They're also no doubt busyfiling some patents of their own
, maybe on that new LumiFoamcushioning they bragged about.
The competition continues, juston a slightly different course.
Speaker 1 (19:22):
It's a real tech war in sneaker land.
Now, footwear isn't just aboutstyle anymore.
It's like having the latestsmartphone full of proprietary
tech.
The battlefield is patentoffices and federal courts as
much as shoe stores.
Nike's basically saying webuilt these innovations, we own
them, and if you copy them,we'll see you in court period.
And companies like Lululemonare responding all right, we see
(19:45):
you, we'll innovate our own way.
It's a high stakes game of soulversus soul.
Speaking of Skechers, theydecided to turn plate it for a
change.
In 2022, skechers actually suedthe ultra luxe fashion house
Hermes yes, the folks known for$10,000 Birkin bags accusing
them of copying Skechers shoetech.
(20:05):
It's not every day you see acomfort shoe brand take on a
Parisian luxury icon.
So you know everyone perked upfor this one.
Speaker 3 (20:13):
Skechers' wildly successful GoWalk line, those
slip-on walkers with the squishysegmented cushioned soles that
your aunt wears to Pilates andsecretly, so do a lot of people
because they're insanely comfy.
Hermès launched its ownhigh-end sneakers, the Eclairs
and Envol, which, surprise,featured very similar pillowy
(20:34):
pod soles.
Skechers cried foul, sayingHermes basically took their sole
design, gave it a fancy Frenchname and slapped a high price
tag on it.
Speaker 1 (20:44):
Sketchers didn't mince words.
They basically called Hermes'move willful and egregious in
the court filings.
Imagine Hermes, a luxury labelwith zero history in performance
footwear, suddenly drops asneaker that looks like a
go-walk in designer clothing.
Sketchers fell flattered in theworst way and demanded justice.
Speaker 3 (21:04):
Hermes, of course, downplayed it.
They didn't outright deny thesoles look alike, but they
argued hey, we developed ourshoe for the luxury customer
Totally different market andvibe so chill.
In the end, this clash oftitans quietly settled in late
2023.
No big public verdict, but,funny thing, hermes phased out
(21:25):
those designs not long afterCoincidence.
I think not.
It was one of those momentswhere mass market made Maison
and IP Law step in to keep thepeace.
Speaker 1 (21:36):
It also showed that innovation can come from
anywhere.
When a storied luxury houseapparently borrows tech from a
comfort sneaker, it validatesthat Skechers had something
worth copying.
And Skechers proved they'rewilling to serve some heel in
court too, not just be thedefendant.
Speaker 3 (21:53):
So what do all these cases teach us?
Why are we telling tales ofstilettos and sandals, duking it
out in court?
Speaker 1 (22:00):
First timing is everything.
If you snooze on filing your IP, looking at you, puma, you lose
.
Post your design online tooearly or delay protecting it,
and not even a Rihannaendorsement can save you.
Speaker 3 (22:15):
Second, distinctiveness wins If your
shoe's design is so unique thatconsumers instantly know it's
yours.
Like a Red Soul or a Bergfootbed, that's pure gold.
Courts love a good secondarymeaning story.
Basically, I see this design, Ithink of you.
Speaker 1 (22:32):
Third, jurisdiction matters, and timing is
everything.
A trademark win in New Yorkmight mean nothing in Paris or
Beijing.
Just ask Manolo Blahnik, whospent 22 years fighting to
reclaim his own name in China.
Your brand isn't truly yoursunless it's protected everywhere
you do business.
Register early, registerglobally, or risk watching
someone else walk off with yourlegacy.
Speaker 3 (22:54):
Fourth don't underestimate the boring stuff A
comfy foam sole, a neat sneakerupper, an orthopedic footbed.
It might not be as sexy as asix-inch heel, but it can be a
multi-million dollar.
Innovation, tech and comfortare as much a part of the shoe
game as glamour, and companieswill fight to guard those
(23:16):
innovations.
In short, whether it's a redbottom heel or a rubber clog, a
knit running shoe or aBirkenstocks handle, if it's
distinctive and desirable, it'sworth defending.
The world of fashion is an allglitz and glam.
There's a lot of grit behindthose glam shoes.
Speaker 1 (23:36):
From the soles on your feet to the sole of your
brand, IP law is always a foot.
If someone tries to step onyour rights, you can and should
give them the boot in court.
Speaker 3 (23:50):
Different vibes, different consumers, but the
same legal principlesDistinctiveness, consumer
recognition and an ironclad IPportfolio.
And that's a wrap for today'sRunway to Courtroom tour.
Thank you for joining us onthis wild walk through the legal
side of footwear.
I'm Leticia Caminero.
Speaker 1 (24:11):
And I'm Artemisa floating in data, dripping in
virtual drip.
This is.
Speaker 3 (24:16):
Intangiblia.
Stay curious, stay protectedand always wear fabulous shoes.
Speaker 2 (24:25):
Thank you for listening to Intangiblia, the
podcast of intangible lawplaying.
Talk about intellectualproperty.
Did you like what we talkedtoday?
Please share with your network.
Do you want to learn more aboutintellectual property?
Subscribe now on your favoritepodcast player.
Follow us on Instagram,facebook, linkedin and Twitter.
(24:45):
Visit our websitewwwintangibliacom.
Copyright Leticia Caminero 2020.
All rights reserved.
This podcast is provided forinformation purposes only.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.