On 2 May 2025, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued an order in Airwair International Ltd v. Zoetop Business Co. Ltd allowing key claims to proceed in a trademark dispute involving the Dr. Martens brand and Shein. The decision follows Airwair’s allegations that Zoetop, Shein’s parent company, breached a 2022 settlement agreement and continued to market infringing footwear. The Court’s ruling narrows the scope of certain claims and directs Airwair to provide further clarity on others.
Background
Dr. Martens, designed and distributed by Airwair, has long cultivated its reputation through distinctive footwear designs that are widely recognised across the fashion industry. The brand previously sued Zoetop in 2020 for selling forty-five products that allegedly infringed its trade dress. That matter was settled by a formal agreement effective from January 2022.
Under the agreement, Shein acknowledged the validity of specified Airwair trademarks, ceased sale of certain products, and paid a lump sum to Airwair. Crucially, the settlement introduced a forward looking enforcement mechanism. It allowed Airwair to issue notices of infringement and provided Shein an opportunity to ‘cure’ future violations through compensation, failing which Airwair retained the right to pursue litigation.
Claims and Allegations
Airwair alleges that Shein continued to sell infringing footwear despite the settlement, prompting multiple breach notices throughout 2022, 2023, and into 2024. In total, sixty one products were flagged by Airwair, of which Shein addressed twenty-eight under the cure provisions.
The complaint identifies two primary trade dresses, the Dr Martens Classic, dating back to 1960, and the Jadon design introduced in 2013, alongside twelve registered trademarks. Airwair further references a recently granted patent covering the design of its shoe soles. These claims form the basis for a broad complaint comprising nine causes of action: from breach of contract to federal trademark infringement, dilution, and California unfair competition claims.
The Court’s Ruling
The Court’s recent order addresses Shein’s motion to dismiss and request for a more definite statement. Each aspect of Airwair’s pleading was scrutinised on both procedural and substantive grounds.
Cured Products and Double Redress
The Court dismissed all non-contract claims based on the twenty-eight products already “cured” under the agreement. Once Shein paid the agreed amounts to resolve these infringements, Airwair could no longer rely on them to support further claims. To do so, the Court noted, would undermine the incentives built into the settlement’s extrajudicial process.
Good Faith and Fair Dealing
Airwair’s separate claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing was found to be duplicative. The Court emphasised that where a party’s remedy arises squarely from the terms of a contract, a parallel implied covenant claim adds nothing unless it addresses conduct that frustrated the contract’s purpose in a distinct and independent manner. In this case, the agreement’s provisions already accounted for future disputes, and Airwair had not alleged a denial of any specific contractual benefit.
Trademark Dilution and Fame
With respect to trademark dilution under both federal and California law, the Court demanded greater clarity. Airwair’s general assertions regarding the global recognition of the Dr. Martens brand were insufficient. Instead, the Court required more precise allegations regarding which specific marks had achieved the level of distinctiveness and fame required to support a dilution claim. The high threshold for ‘fame’ often requiring household-name status, was reiterated.
Infringement and Unfair Competition
Airwair’s claims for infringement and unfair competition survived the motion to dismiss. The Court held that the complaint provided adequate notice, listing the registered marks and offering examples of Shein’s allegedly infringing products. Although the complaint did not map each Shein product to a specific trademark or trade dress, the Court determined this level of detail was not required at the pleading stage and could be explored in discovery.
Sealing of the Settlement Agreement
Both parties sought to maintain the confidentiality of the 2022 agreement. The Court, however, refused to keep the entire document under seal. It held that the agreement’s relevance to the case required disclosure, subject only to narrowly tailored redactions of commercially sensitive material. Confidentiality clauses alone do not outweigh the presumption of public access in judicial proceedings.
Next Steps
The Court has granted Airwair leave to amend its complaint to include more detailed allegations regarding the fame of its individual marks. The revised pleading must be filed by 6 June 2025. Meanwhile, the core claims of infringement, unfair competition, breach of contract, and patent infringement remain active and will proceed.
Conclusion
The ruling delivers a measured outcome. Airwair retains the ability to enforce its core trade mark rights and to continue its claim of ongoing infringement. At the same time, the Court has clarified the boundaries of contract enforcement and the limits on raising claims that have already been resolved, particularly where assertions of trade mark reputation are involved. For brand owners, the case illustrates the need for clear enforcement terms in settlement agreements and the risks of pursuing overlapping claims in subsequent litigation.