Vans, art collective settle trademark dispute over 'Wavy Baby' shoes
By Blake Brittain
Aug 21 (Reuters) -Vans has agreed to settle its lawsuit against art collective MSCHF over its distorted parody versions of Vans' shoes, according to a filing in New York federal court.
The parties told the court on Tuesday that MSCHF will permanently stop selling its "Wavy Baby" shoes and using Vans' trademarks based on the terms of a confidential settlement agreement.
Vans' parent company VF Corp VFC.N declined to comment. Attorneys and spokespeople for MSCHF did not immediately respond to requests for comment and more information on the settlement.
MSCHF is a Brooklyn-based conceptual art group that specializes in satirizing consumer culture. It was separately sued by Nike in 2021 over its collaboration with rapper Lil Nas X on "Satan Shoes" — customized Nike Air Max 97 sneakers that purportedly contained a drop of human blood — in a case that later settled.
Vans sued MSCHF in April 2022 over its "Wavy Baby" shoes, which alter Vans' classic Old Skool shoe design with an exaggerated "wavy" structure. MSCHF sold all 4,306 pairs of the shoes within an hour of releasing them, four days after Vans filed its lawsuit.
U.S. District Judge William Kuntz later that month preliminarily blocked MSCHF from advertising or fulfilling orders for the shoes, and said Vans was likely to prove that they would cause confusion with the company's trademark-protected design.
MSCHF challenged the decision at the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Its attorney David Bernstein of Debevoise & Plimpton told the court that its cartoonish shoes are not intended "to be worn at all, other than as a statement" on consumerism and sneaker culture.
The 2nd Circuit upheld Kuntz's decision last year, agreeing that MSCHF's shoes were likely to confuse consumers and rejecting the collective's argument that it was entitled to enhanced constitutional protections that can apply to works of art in trademark cases.
The case is Vans Inc v. MSCHF Product Studio Inc, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, No. 1:22-cv-02156.
For Vans: Lucy Wheatley, Philip Goldstein and Matthew Cornelia of McGuireWoods
For MSCHF: David Bernstein and Megan Bannigan of Debevoise & Plimpton, William Patterson of Swanson Martin & Bell
Read more:
Vans wins appeal in bid to ban art collective's 'Wavy Baby' shoes
Nike ends lawsuit over Lil Nas X 'Satan Shoes,' which will be recalled
Reporting by Blake Brittain in Washington
Related Assets
Latest News
Disclaimer: The XM Group entities provide execution-only service and access to our Online Trading Facility, permitting a person to view and/or use the content available on or via the website, is not intended to change or expand on this, nor does it change or expand on this. Such access and use are always subject to: (i) Terms and Conditions; (ii) Risk Warnings; and (iii) Full Disclaimer. Such content is therefore provided as no more than general information. Particularly, please be aware that the contents of our Online Trading Facility are neither a solicitation, nor an offer to enter any transactions on the financial markets. Trading on any financial market involves a significant level of risk to your capital.
All material published on our Online Trading Facility is intended for educational/informational purposes only, and does not contain – nor should it be considered as containing – financial, investment tax or trading advice and recommendations; or a record of our trading prices; or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instruments; or unsolicited financial promotions to you.
Any third-party content, as well as content prepared by XM, such as: opinions, news, research, analyses, prices and other information or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an “as-is” basis, as general market commentary, and do not constitute investment advice. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, it would be considered as marketing communication under the relevant laws and regulations. Please ensure that you have read and understood our Notification on Non-Independent Investment. Research and Risk Warning concerning the foregoing information, which can be accessed here.
