Tommy Mallet is ready to set the record straight.

Indeed, after nearly a year of legal entanglements with his former business partner, the 32-year-old entrepreneur and reality star is making his footwear industry comeback on his terms.

“I think everyone wants to know what’s going on,” Mallet told FN in an exclusive interview. “I’m literally getting thousands of messages. It has been a very hard and serious journey for me the last few months.”

Since December, Mallet, who’s real last name is Fordham, has been fighting an injunction filed by Mallet London cofounder and business director Evren Ozka following the announcement of his new shoe brand CTRNE.

According to legal documents, Ozka was alleging that Mallet could not launch a competing shoe company like CTRNE, work with previous retail partners and sales agents or poach Mallet London staff for the 12 months following his resignation from the company per a non-compete agreement. But Mallet countered the claim stating that CTRNE does not compete with Mallet and that halting his new self-funded business operations would produce enough financial damage to cause him to close entirely.

FN has reached out to Ozka for comment.

Mallet told FN that that the main retailer his former business partner was worried he would bring CTRNE to was Saks Fifth Avenue, but ultimately, he was restricted in doing business with a total of 10 different stores, he said.

Ultimately in April, a judge ruled to enforce Mallet’s non-compete and bar him from doing business with retailers that currently work with his eponymous shoe brand as well as hire previous colleagues until Oct. 31, 2024 — the one-year mark from when he resigned his director position at Mallet London.

“I don’t want to do any damage to either of my businesses, as I still own 50 percent of Mallet London, so I agreed to not talk to retailers through Oct. 31,” Mallet said. “It’s what I’ve had to do. I had to go and take a long holiday. I’ve lost a lot of money, but I’m at the end of this now. I’ve got another kid on the way in November, and I don’t want to have to deal with this mess. So, all that the injunction has done to me was make me even more eager to go out and get to work. I’m ready to go.”

Mallet went on to call Nov. 1 basically a “relaunch day” for when he can actually do what he wants with CTRNE going forward. And he hasn’t been resting on his laurels beforehand. During his downtime related to the injunction, Mallet said that he has been busy working to understand CTRNE’s customer, developing new footwear styles and building out the brand’s infrastructure.

“When I first launched CTRNE, there was a lot of excitement around the brand,” Mallet said. “But I sort of lost some of that buzz because I had to deal with this legal sh*t. But everything happens for a reason. We are still the first spiritual footwear brand in the world, and we have a story to tell. But I’m literally starting from scratch.”

The UK sneaker exec said that he has launched a new U.S. version of his brand’s e-commerce site, signed on a new marketing agency to promote this new site and has added a distribution center stateside to improve delivery times.

“My main priority right now is to pick who my retailers are in the States,” Mallet said. “I definitely want to open my own retail store over there, because I want to be able to give the full experience of CTRNE. I’ve also done a partnership in the paddle space. We’ll be affiliated to paddle as a sport, and then we’ll also be doing a lot of workshops where we’re not just doing fashion, but like teaching manifestation and law of attraction, and bringing that positivity to the community. We are not just trying to sell sneakers in stores. It’s about teaching and brining the experience to people and showing them that anyone can be better.”

But in the meantime, Mallet insists that there is “no bad blood” between him and Ozka. “I still own 50 percent of Mallet London and I’m still a shareholder. Whether anyone likes it or not, I still co-own the business,” Mallet insisted. “I may not be a part of the daily operations, but it’s in my interest to try and just keep both brands alive, which is tough when you’re fighting. But I ain’t going nowhere.”

He does admit, however, that perhaps he may have made some wrong decisions throughout the process of launching CTRNE. “Everyone is human, and everyone makes mistakes,” he noted. “I think I might have said a few things that I shouldn’t have said, but with that said, my partner thinks he should be getting the brand for free. That’s what this is all about. And obviously, no one’s getting nothing for free from me, man.”

“I thought I knew it all before, but turns out, I knew nothing,” Mallet admitted. “I learned that making sneakers is the easy part. Having been through so many different emotions over the last six months, I would never with it on my worst enemy. I’ve really had to put the message of my sneakers into action and have a taste of my own medicine.”

Bottom line, Mallet is ready to chart a new path. “I think I’ve been done well to stay quiet this long,” he added. “But it wasn’t for anything other than I was just enjoying my peace. But time’s up now.”

A Florida-based entrepreneur is suing Nike for allegedly copying her design patents pertaining to a sports bra with pockets.

SherryWear LLC claimed in a lawsuit filed this week that Nike copied its pocket bra design after its founder, Sherry Goff, submitted the SherryWear pocket bra design to Nike via an online submission. The design at the time had some issued and pending patents.

According to the suit, which was filed in a Massachusetts court on Monday, Nike rejected Goff’s design in March 2017. Just a few months later, Nike filed a U.S. patent application for a “Bra With Storage Pockets.” Goff submitted the SherryWear pocket bra design to Nike again after that and was rejected again.

SherryWear specifically takes issue with Nike’s Swoosh Pocket Bra and the Swoosh on the Run bras, both of which feature pockets.

“Nike has never had authority to use, offer, sell or import any product or assembly covered by the Pocket Bra Patents or actively induce others to do so,” the suit claims. “By continuing to engage in commercial activities described in this complaint, Nike is knowingly, deliberately and intentionally infringing the Pocket Bra Patents.”

FN has reached out to Nike for a comment. In a statement to FN, a spokesperson for SherryWear’s law firm, Caldwell IP Law, said it is “confident in the effectiveness of the patent system and its ability to empower small businesses, such as SherryWear.”

Nike may be on the defensive this time, but the Swoosh has historically taken a harsh legal stance when it comes to protecting itself against potential copycats. Nike, in 2021, filed a trademark infringement and dilution complaint against MSCHF, the company that released its controversial Satan Shoes with Lil Nas X, and settled the lawsuit shortly after. Last year, Nike resolved its trademark infringement battle with footwear designer John Geiger after claiming he created sneakers that were similar to Nike’s Air Force 1 shoes.

#TheDress is making headlines yet again — albeit, under more serious circumstances. Keir Johnston — the man whose mother-in-law’s dress color was virally debated in 2015 — has been charged with an alleged attempt to murder his wife.

Johnston is currently facing a range of allegations, which include shouting at, striking, isolating and monitoring his wife between April 2019 and March 2022, according to Insider. It was also reported that Johnston has currently denied all of the charges he is facing, which will continue in a preliminary hearing and 2024 trial.

Johnston’s mother-in-law’s dress — a lace-trimmed, sleeveless pleated piece from Roman Originals — originally went viral in 2015 after being shared on Tumblr by wedding guest Caitlin McNeill. The garment, which became known as #TheDress, specifically drew global attention from a debate on its color, which some viewed as black and blue while others deemed its color scheme white and gold.

McNeill clarified in 2015 to Time that the dress was black and blue, following over 21 million views on her initial since-deleted post and 10 million tweets on the dress globally.

In fact, the dress debate grew so immensely that celebrities, sportspeople and public figures all chimed in with their opinions. Stars including Kim Kardashian, Taylor Swift, Zendaya, Justin Bieber, Jaden Smith and numerous others went subsequently viral as well for their reactions to the dress’ color, both agreeing and debating with each other on its hue.

“What color is that dress? I see white & gold. Kanye sees black & blue, who is color blind?” Kardashian tweeted at the time.

Currently, Roman Originals no longer produces the dress in question. However, the brand did share on its website that the blue and black style sold out in 34 minutes upon going viral — and they even released a one-off gold and white version to raise proceeds for the nonprofit Comic Relief.

According to a report in TMZ, Art City Center, a company that owns a Los Angeles building that was set to house the Yeezy Gap line under a new lease to Gap, sued the apparel company last year. The building owner said this space underwent renovations to ready it for the Yeezy Gap line, which never came to fruition. Now the company wants to restore the space and is asking Gap to pay.

With its new suit against West, Gap is shifting the blame to the designer and requesting he pay the building expenses as well as Gap’s legal fees in the matter against Art City Center.

Gap Inc. declined to comment. West could not immediately be located for comment.

Gap and Kanye West’s Yeezy brand terminated their partnership in 2022. According to a notice of termination sent from West’s lawyer to Gap, West claimed that Gap failed to fulfill certain contractual obligations, such as distributing Yeezy product in stores by the second half of 2021 and creating Yeezy Gap-branded stores.

In 2021, West struck a 10-year deal for Yeezy Gap with Gap Inc. and the option to renew after 5 years. West launched his Yeezy x Gap line for the first time at brick-and-mortar Gap stores on July 21 along with product from the Yeezy Gap Engineered by Balenciaga collection. The collection became available in 45 stores the following day. However, West faced backlash for his decision to sell the Yeezy Gap Engineered by Balenciaga collection in trash bags.

The suit marks the latest legal dilemma for West. Earlier this month, West was ordered to pay over $300,000 to Brooklyn, N.Y.-based creative Katelyn Mooney after failing to appear in court for a lawsuit that alleged that West and his Yeezy brand owed Mooney over $300,000 in damages and unpaid invoices related to a photo shoot she was hired to produce in September.

In April, a law firm filed a class action suit against Adidas for misleading investors, saying the German sportswear brand was aware of West’s controversial and racist behavior well before the brand ended its Yeezy partnership with him in October 2022. Adidas cut ties with West and his Yeezy brand after the rapper-turned-designer made repeated antisemitic comments.

Recently, however, West saw a small legal win in a suit against Adidas when a judge lifted Adidas’ order to freeze $75 million in assets for the Yeezy brand, due to a procedural mishap.

The alleged issues began as early as 2019, when customer Linda Ainger routinely bought Monkey Feet shoes — at least 100 pairs — online for her children, according to CBS News. Upon receiving messages where orders were deemed delayed or canceled, it was reported, Aigner and other customers began requesting refunds — which shed claimed were denied by the brand’s customer service representative.

“She’d give us every excuse under the sun, ‘they were stuck in customs,’ very snarky messages,” Aigner claimed.

During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic in the early 2020s, when supply chains caused businesses to delay customer orders, shopper Kristin Arvallo said she saw similar complaints about Monkey Feet on TikTok. The movement caused her to create a private “Buyer Beware” Facebook group for the brand, which now has over 15,000 members — and, to her estimate, spanned over 57,000 orders, she claimed.

Currently, Monkey Feet USA has an “F” rating of 1.23 out of 5 stars by the Better Business Bureau (BBB). The organization’s Monkey Feet page states that the brand frequently received non-delivery and refund complaints from customers. The brand’s social media and website are fully shut down, and it is not accredited by the BBB. Social media users who claimed to have purchased the brand’s products are continuing to make claims about Monkey Feet’s business practices.

Court documents state that Monkey Feet was evicted from its original warehouse in Florida and sued for $225,000 for overdue rent, according to CBS News.

In a complaint filed in a California District Court on Monday, a plaintiff said the footwear retailer “covertly wiretaps the personal conversations of all visitors” who use the chat feature on its website without their consent and allows at least one third party company to “eavesdrop” on these communications and use the data for their own gain. According to the complaint, Foot Locker’s actions constitute a violation of the the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), which prohibits wiretapping and eavesdropping of digital communications without the consent of all parties.

The suit say it believes the third party listener is either software platform Smooch or Zendesk — or both.

“Visitors often share highly sensitive personal data with Defendant via the website chat feature,” the complaint noted. “Visitors would be shocked and appalled to know that Defendant secretly records those conversations, and would be even more troubled to learn that Defendant allows a third party to eavesdrop on the conversations in real time to harvest data from the chat transcripts under the guise of ‘data analytics.'”

FN has reached out to Foot Locker for a comment.

According to the complaint, which is seeking class action status, at least 5,000 people were impacted and entitled to $5,000 each in statutory damages, which would result in a total of $25 million in cost to Foot Locker.

With this lawsuit, Foot Locker is the latest retailer to be accused of violating consumer privacy law via its digital properties. In November, Crocs and Adidas were named in two separate class action lawsuits alleging that both brands violated consumer privacy law.

The suit against Crocs alleges that the clog maker “secretly wiretaps the private conversations of everyone who communicates through the chat feature” on its website and that it allows a third party to listen into these conversation in real-time without consumer consent to “harvest data for financial gain.” The suit against Adidas also accuses the brand of illegally wiretapping visitors’ conversations, communications and mouse clicks on its website and sharing the data with its third party technology partners.

The fashion mogul and brand builder has been charged by the SEC for posting about a crypto asset security without saying she had received payment to promote it. According to the SEC, Kardashian was paid $250,000 to post on Instagram about EMAX, an asset from EthereumMax. The post included a link with instructions for potential investors.

Kardashian will pay $1.26 million in penalties, disgorgement, and interest in an agreement to settle the charges, the SEC said. She will also cooperate with the investigation and has agreed to halt promotion of crypto asset securities for three years.

“This case is a reminder that, when celebrities or influencers endorse investment opportunities, including crypto asset securities, it doesn’t mean that those investment products are right for all investors,” said SEC Chair Gary Gensler in a statement. “We encourage investors to consider an investment’s potential risks and opportunities in light of their own financial goals.”

Federal securities laws dictate that celebrities or other people that promote a crypto asset security must disclose the compensation they have received for the promotion, as well as the nature and source of it, explained the director of the SEC’s division of enforcement Gurbir S. Grewal in a statement. Such information allows potential investors to understand the nature of a promotion for a security, and if the promotor is biased or not.

Kardashian is the creator and owner of several brands, including the SKIMS shapewear line and skincare line, SKKN.

A lawyer for Kardashian said in a statement to CNBC that she is pleased to have resolved the matter.

“Kardashian fully cooperated with the SEC from the very beginning and she remains willing to do whatever she can to assist the SEC in this matter. She wanted to get this matter behind her to avoid a protracted dispute. The agreement she reached with the SEC allows her to do that so that she can move forward with her many different business pursuits,” the statement said.

Walmart on Thursday described the lawsuit as an “egregious instance of agency overreach” in a public statement and said it had asked for a dismissal.

In a complaint filed in June in a U.S. district court in the Northern District of Illinois, the FTC said Walmart allowed its money transfer services to be used to defraud consumers out of “hundreds of millions of dollars” through telemarketing and other scams and has failed to enact policies to prevent these transfers. According to the FTC, Walmart knew that various telemarketing scams — which work by deceiving people into wiring money — tend to convince people to send money to fraud rings via Walmart’s money transfer services.

“As a result of Walmart’s failure to take appropriate steps to mitigate the problem, consumers have lost substantial sums to frauds through money transfers effected at Walmart,” the lawsuit alleged.

Walmart offers a slew of financial services to customers, including money transfers, credit cards, reloadable debit cards, check cashing and bill payments. The company facilitates payments on money transfer services like MoneyGram, Ria and Western Union as well as through its own programs, such as Walmart2Walmart and Walmart2World.

According to Walmart, its low fee money transfer systems have saved consumers an estimated $6 billion in fees.

“The FTC is trying to hold Walmart liable for the criminal actions of completely unrelated third-party fraudsters, in spite of Walmart’s extensive efforts to prevent those very fraudsters from defrauding our customers, and despite the FTC’s lack of constitutional or statutory authority to bring the lawsuit,” Walmart said in a statement. “Walmart is now — and always has been — dedicated to its customers, and shares the FTC’s goal of protecting customers from fraudsters.”

Walmart previously described the lawsuit as “factually misguided and legally flawed” and accused the FTC of placing the blame on Walmart after already blaming MoneyGram, another company that had been under the supervision of the federal government. The FTC had previously discovered that MoneyGram, which works with Walmart on transfers, had a failure in its anti-fraud interdiction system during an 18-month period, according to a FOIA request from Walmart.

“Walmart has a robust anti-fraud program to help stop third-party criminals who try to use money transfer services to commit fraud, and only a minuscule number of transactions are even alleged to be fraudulent,” Walmart said in a prior statement. “In fact, Walmart has stopped hundreds of thousands of suspicious transactions totaling hundreds of millions of dollars.”

Walmart previously said it plans to “defend against this lawsuit aggressively.”

This is not Walmart’s first brush with the FTC. In May, the FTC fined Walmart $2.5 million in civil penalties in light of allegations that the retailer misled consumers by falsely marketing some products as bamboo. In November, the FTC ordered Walmart and other retailers to to turn over information that would help explain the supply chain crisis.

In a complaint filed Thursday in a U.S. district court in the Eastern District of Louisiana, plaintiff Beverly Robinson claimed that she suffered injuries and damages at a Walmart store when an employee slammed multiple grocery carts into her.

“Robinson put the items in the grocery cart and placed her hands on the handle of the cart, when suddenly and violently she was pushed to the floor, by the force of several grocery carts being pushed into her from the opposite side, by a Walmart employee,” the complaint read.

Robinson said her resulting injuries and damages came from Walmart neglecting to keep its customers safe and for recklessly operating its shopping carts. Robinson claimed to have suffered from multiple bruises across her body as well as injuries to the head and brain, which have caused permanent headaches, emotional distress and shock. As a result, Robinson said she has needed to undergo ongoing medical treatment and has experienced limitations on her physical abilities.

“We want our customers to have a safe and enjoyable shopping experience,” Walmart said in a statement to FN. “We will respond in court as appropriate after we are served with the complaint.”

This is the latest public legal spat to arise concerning Walmart in recent weeks. Last month, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) sued Walmart for “turning a blind eye” to scammers who used the company’s money transfer system to steal from customers.

In May, the FTC fined Walmart $2.5 million in civil penalties in light of allegations that the retailer misled consumers by falsely marketing some products as bamboo. In November, the FTC ordered Walmart and other retailers to to turn over information that would help explain the supply chain crisis.

Walmart and Kohl’s have agreed to pay $2.5 million and $3 million in civil penalties, respectively, in light of allegations that the retailers misled consumers by falsely marketing some products as bamboo. The FTC filed a suit in April against the two retailers in the District of Columbia, claiming that Kohl’s and Walmart “falsely” marketed dozens of rayon textile products as bamboo.”

The FTC, which aims to protect and inform consumers, also alleged that both companies made “deceptive environmental claims” by marketing that their bamboo textiles were made via eco-friendly processes, which is rarely the case when it comes to converting bamboo into rayon.

“Kohl’s and Walmart are paying millions of dollars under the FTC’s Penalty Offense Authority for mislabeling their rayon products as bamboo,” said Samuel Levine, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, in a release. “False environmental claims harm both consumers and honest businesses, and companies that greenwash can expect to pay a price.”

In the initial complaints, the FTC highlighted that certain products at Walmart and Kohl’s such as sheets, towels and blankets that claim to be made from bamboo and eco-friendly are actually made from rayon, a man-made fiber that requires toxic chemicals in its conversion process. Advertising the products as bamboo-based without disclosing the actual fiber names violates the Textile Act and Rules, which requires such details to prevent against falsely advertised products.

To address the violations, the FTC proposed that Kohl’s and Walmart stop falsely advertising products as bamboo or eco-friendly and pay $2.5 million and $3 million, respectively, in civil penalties.

A Kohl’s spokesperson in April said the company reached a settlement with the FTC and continues to “take these regulations seriously.”

When asked for a comment on the initial complaint, Walmart said it was “pleased” to be able to work with the FTC to resolve these issues.

“We are committed to being the most trusted retailer and take these claims seriously,” a company spokesperson said. “We hold ourselves accountable when issues like this are raised. We have worked to strengthen our product description programs and expect our suppliers to provide products that comply with all laws, including those around labeling.”

Walmart is also currently tied up in a lawsuit with Vans, regarding the sale of certain shoes. A federal judge last week blocked Walmart from continuing to sell certain shoes that are “confusingly similar” to Vans’ registered trademarks and protectable trade dress during the duration of the litigation between both parties. The opinion represents the use of a preliminary injunction, which is meant to help prevent a party in a lawsuit from suffering irreparable harm if no injunction is issued during litigation.

Walmart has also filed a lawsuit against its big-box rival BJ’s Wholesale, alleging that it stole the self-checkout technology it uses in its Sam’s Club wholesale warehouse chain.