On 29 April 2025, the United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted Louis Vuitton North America, Inc.’s motion to dismiss all claims brought by Pocket Socks, Inc. The court found that the complaint lacked sufficient factual detail to establish a realistic likelihood of consumer confusion and failed to define the claimed trade dress with the clarity required under Ninth Circuit precedent.
Although the court granted leave to amend, the decision makes clear that trademark and trade dress claims must be pled with precision and supported by more than generalised assertions. It confirms that a plausible risk of confusion must rest on clearly defined rights, not on a broad or loosely presented impression.
Brand History of Pocket Socks
Pocket Socks was founded by Evan Papel after a pickpocket stole his cash while he was travelling in Europe in 2012. He initially marketed the product as “ZIP IT GEAR” before adopting “Pocket Socks.” The company secured three registrations from the United States Patent and Trademark Office:
A word mark “Pocket Socks” (converted to the Principal Register as Reg. No. 4,414,045)
A three-dimensional trade dress showing a sock with shaded toe and heel, eleven shaded circles and a zippered pocket (Reg. No. 6,066,095)
A design patent for a “Sock with Zippered Pocket” (D965,284)
Pocket Socks sells its travel-oriented socks at mass-market prices (under US$ 50) through online retailers such as Amazon and QVC.
Legal Issues and Claims
In June 2024, Pocket Socks sued Louis Vuitton North America, Inc., alleging trademark infringement, trade dress infringement, and unfair competition under California law. The core of the complaint was that Louis Vuitton had launched its own line of “Pocket Socks” in June 2023, debuting at Paris Fashion Week and later sold through its boutiques and website. Pocket Socks claimed the name was identical to its own and that the product featured a checkerboard-style pattern reminiscent of Louis Vuitton’s Damier design.
Louis Vuitton responded with a motion to dismiss, arguing that the complaint was built on conclusory statements rather than factual allegations supporting the required likelihood of confusion. It further argued that the trade dress claim lacked clarity, as the complaint failed to identify the specific elements of the design it sought to protect.
Comparison of Marks and Design Features
Both parties use the term “Pocket Socks,” but their products differ in price point, distribution channel and branding. Pocket Socks’ goods retail for under US$ 50 on mass-market platforms. LV’s socks carry a luxury price near US$ 500 and are sold in high-end boutiques.
Photographs in the complaint show LV’s socks featuring the LV monogram and a Damier inspired checkerboard knitted into the fabric. The court noted that the prominent display of Louis Vuitton’s housemark and the considerable price gap make confusion unlikely as a matter of law.
With respect to trade dress, Pocket Socks asserted rights in a sock shape with shaded areas, circles and a zippered pocket. LV’s socks instead rely on a well-known two-tone square pattern and its LV initials. The complaint did not spell out which aspects of the sock design Pocket Socks claimed to protect. Without a clear statement of the protected design features, LV could not reasonably prepare a defence.
Relief Sought by Louis Vuitton
Louis Vuitton sought dismissal of all counts for failure to state a claim. It emphasised that:
A drastic price difference and distinct retail channels reduce any likelihood of confusion.
The visible use of LV housemarks makes clear the origin of LV’s socks.
Pocket Socks did not define its claimed trade dress with the specificity required to give fair notice.
The company requested an order confirming that the “Pocket Socks” mark may not be enforced in conjunction with designs that exploit the goodwill of Louis Vuitton’s trade dress.
Why This Case Matters
The decision highlights two key requirements for trademark and trade dress complaints:
Plausible pleading of confusion: Plaintiffs must allege facts supporting each Sleekcraft factor to survive a motion to dismiss. General assertions of confusion or mere photographs will not suffice.
Particularity for trade dress: Complaints must include a detailed description of the design features claimed as trade dress. Photographic exhibits alone do not meet the notice requirement.
For brand owners and practitioners, the ruling underlines the importance of grounding claims in carefully drafted factual allegations and precise identification of the design attributes to be protected.
Conclusion
The court dismissed Pocket Socks’ complaint without prejudice and allowed 21 days to file an amended version. To proceed, Pocket Socks must provide factual allegations for each Sleekcraft factor and clearly specify the design features it asserts as trade dress. Without that level of detail, the claims will not survive. The decision confirms that courts require a solid factual foundation before allowing trademark or trade dress disputes to move forward.
