In a recent legal development that has caught the attention of sneakerheads and legal experts alike, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Vans, determining that the Wavy Baby sneakers produced by MSCHF were indeed likely to mislead customers, and that MSCHF was not eligible for the additional constitutional rights that are sometimes extended to artistic works in cases involving trademarks.
MSCHF, a collective known for its creative and often controversial products, released the Wavy Baby sneakers that many saw as inspired by the iconic Vans Old Skool. However, MSCHF added a twist to the classic design by incorporating a wavy aesthetic throughout the shoe, including its sole. The sneakers mirrored the Vans Old Skool in material, color scheme, color blocking, and general shape, albeit with a distorted, wavy interpretation.
On top of this, their Super Normal sneaker drew comparisons to the Nike Air Force 1. Shortly after the model's debut, MSCHF introduced a second version that switched up select details, likely to try and distance itself from a potential lawsuit from Nike.
Upon the release of the Wavy Baby sneakers, Vans promptly filed a lawsuit against MSCHF, alleging trademark infringement. Vans argued that the Wavy Baby sneakers not only borrowed heavily from its own design but also could potentially lead to consumer confusion, a critical factor in trademark law.
On December 5, Reuters reported a significant development in the case: the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Vans. This judgment upheld the notion that MSCHF's Wavy Baby sneakers would likely confuse consumers. The appeals court found that MSCHF's use of Vans' trademarks went beyond artistic expression and entered the realm of branding their products, thus infringing on Vans' trademark rights.
The court documents revealed that MSCHF sold 4,306 pairs of the Wavy Baby sneaker in just one hour. Further on, the documents give the backstory into the creation of the Wavy Baby with MSCHF's co-CCO explaining that the design started with a Vans Old Skool. MSCHF then used photo editing tools to warp a picture of the sneaker into a new image, thus giving the world the Wavy Baby.
A critical aspect of this ruling was the application of the First Amendment. The court determined that the First Amendment did not shield MSCHF in this instance. The rationale was that MSCHF used Vans' trademarks not as a form of artistic expression but rather to brand its products. In the decision, the court cited a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling in favor of Jack Daniel's against a company producing dog toys that parodied its whiskey bottles.
The three-judge panel underscored the justification for the ban on MSCHF's shoes, noting the striking similarity to Vans' designs, Vans' history of collaborating with artists, and the evidence of actual consumer confusion regarding the source of the Wavy Baby sneakers.
The verdict has resonated throughout the sneaker and legal communities. Zak Kurtz, the owner of Sneaker & Streetwear Legal Services, commented on the decision via X, formerly known as Twitter. He highlighted the significance of the ruling, stating, "This is a BIG decision for sneakerheads and those who create shoes that could be seen as a parody or have some sort of 1st Amendment protected speech on them."
This landmark decision marks a pivotal moment in the intersection of trademark law and artistic expression within the sneaker industry. It underscores the fine line that creators must tread between homage and infringement and sets a precedent for how similar cases might be adjudicated in the future. As the sneaker culture evolves, this case will undoubtedly be referenced in future legal battles and discussions about the balance between creativity and intellectual property rights.
