The Vans vs MSCHF dispute over the Wavy Baby sneakers was anything but straightforward. Vans alleged that MSCHF had copied the Old Skool design, pursuing claims of trade dress infringement. MSCHF pushed back, framing the sneakers as a parody and invoking First Amendment protections. The dispute goes beyond a sneaker’s design, involving the safeguarding of a brand’s unique identity, supporting creative expression, and preventing consumer confusion. It shows how intellectual property law can intersect with artistic expression in surprising ways.
Background of the Dispute
In April 2022, Vans laced up for a legal match against MSCHF, accusing the Brooklyn-based art collective of trademark and trade dress infringement. The Wavy Baby sneakers, a distorted take on Vans’ Old Skool design, were at the center of the controversy. Vans contended that the shoes’ design was too close for comfort, potentially misleading consumers into thinking they were part of an official collaboration.
MSCHF, known for its satirical takes on consumer culture, defended its product as a parody intended to critique the excesses of consumer culture. MSCHF, argued that the “Wavy Baby” sneakers were protected under the First Amendment as a form of artistic critique rather than a commercial product. MSCHF’s legal team maintained that the shoes were not meant to be worn but rather served as statements on sneaker culture and consumerism.
Preliminary Injunction
Shortly after the lawsuit was filed, a U.S. District Court granted Vans a preliminary injunction, temporarily blocking MSCHF from selling the Wavy Baby sneakers. The court found that Vans was likely to succeed on its claims of trademark infringement and consumer confusion. The decision focused on the likelihood of consumer confusion, noting that MSCHF’s use of Vans’ trademarks could lead the public to mistakenly believe the shoes were an official Vans collaboration.
The court rejected MSCHF’s argument that the sneakers were protected under the First Amendment as a form of artistic expression. Instead, it viewed the Wavy Baby as a commercial product leveraging Vans’ established brand goodwill. The court also found that the sneakers were marketed as functional footwear, directly competing with Vans, rather than purely as parody.
Appeal to the Second Circuit
MSCHF appealed the injunction, reiterating that the sneakers were a satirical commentary rather than a commercial product. The Second Circuit upheld the lower court’s decision, agreeing that the use of Vans’ trademarks was likely to confuse consumers. While the court acknowledged the importance of artistic expression, it clarified that First Amendment protections do not extend to commercial products that rely on another’s trademark.
Settlement and Final Resolution
The case was ultimately resolved through a confidential settlement. MSCHF agreed to stop selling the Wavy Baby sneakers and discontinue use of Vans’ trademarks. The outcome preserved the distinctiveness of Vans’ Old Skool design and highlights the risks of leveraging another brand’s identity in commercial ventures, even under the guise of parody or artistic critique.
Takeaways from Vans vs. MSCHF
This case provides critical insights into the enforcement of trademark rights:
- Artistic Expression Has Limits: The courts’ rulings also tells us that the First Amendment does not provide carte blanche to exploit trademarks. While artistic expression is protected, it cannot be used as a shield for commercial activities that rely on another’s trademark.
- Consumer Confusion: Both the lower court and the Second Circuit emphasised the likelihood of consumer confusion, which is central to trademark infringement claims. This case reaffirmed that when the similarity between products is likely to mislead consumers, trademark protection prevails.
- Trademark strength matters: Actively policing and protecting distinctive designs is essential for brand identity.
Conclusion
The Vans vs MSCHF case draws a fine line between creative expression and trademark infringement, much like the sneakers themselves. For brands, it shows the need to actively guard their trademarks, because if you don’t, someone might just wave them into an artistic critique.
For creators, parody has limits, especially when it enters the market using someone else’s design. The case also reflects the ongoing push and pull between intellectual property law and artistic freedom, where each side must tread carefully to avoid stepping on the other’s rights.
Sources:
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/22-1006/22-1006-2023-12-05.html