Steve Madden is seeking to stop Ganni from interfering with its business relationships in its latest legal battle.

According to an ongoing lawsuit that was first filed in July in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Steve Madden is claiming that Ganni has sent a rapid series of cease-and-desist letters to the company and its United States wholesale customers and resellers, including Nordstrom and Dillard’s, since February.

In the letters, Steve Madden said that the Danish fashion brand is alleging that its “Graya” flat and, at least in one instance, the “Sandria” sandal, infringe worldwide copyrights and other intellectual property rights Ganni claims to own in its “Feminine Buckle Ballerina” and “Feminine Buckle Two-Strap Sandal.”

“Ganni did not invent the ballet flat or the slingback flat; Ganni did not invent the timeless pointed toe or the combined use of belted straps and metal eyelets on shoe designs; and Ganni certainly did not invent the use of two-adjustable buckle straps on an open-toe sandal,” the Long Island City, N.Y.-based Steve Madden wrote in the lawsuit. “Simply put, Ganni owns no intellectual property rights in its shoe design in the United States and its claims of ‘worldwide’ rights are patently false.”

As of now, the case is still in its early stages as Ganni’s main operations are in Europe. In fact, Ganni’s Danish headquarters, was only served the lawsuit last month. As of Oct. 4, Ganni has 21 days to respond to Steve Madden’s allegations.

Madden said Ganni’s allegations of trademark infringement have no basis since its design is not original. “As of the date of this filing, Steve Madden has identified almost 100 similar versions of the Buckle Ballerina and Two-Strap Sandal presently or previously available for sale in the United States,” the suit said.

Madden went on to state that Ganni has been “harassing and threatening” Steve Madden and its customers. For instance, the company alleged that Ganni demanded that Dillard’s destroy its inventory of Graya shoes, Madden said. Then, Ganni made the same demands of Nordstrom, which in turn canceled hundreds of customer orders for Graya shoes based on Ganni’s misrepresentations, Madden claimed.

Ganni has also sued a small e-commerce California retail site, Lulu’s Fashion Lounge LLC, in Denmark courts demanding that it cease all sales of the Steve Madden shoes and destroy its inventory. Steve Madden claims that this suit was also filed to inflict harm on Steve Madden and its business relationships.

“Ganni’s tortious and improper attempts to use foreign litigation and other harassment tactics to stop the lawful manufacturing, marketing, and selling of Steve Madden’s shoes in the United States is interfering with Steve Madden’s legitimate business and its contractual relationships with its customers,” the lawsuit claims. “Ganni’s statements to Steve Madden customers are false and defamatory in nature, improperly leading Steve Madden’s longtime customers to believe that Steve Madden is infringing on design rights in the United States that Ganni does not have.”

FN has reached out to Steve Madden, Ganni and Nordstrom for comment.

Kizik is coming after a competing footwear company for allegedly infringing on its utility patents.

In a lawsuit filed Sept. 16 in the Southern District of Ohio, Kizik accused Tishkoff Enterprises, LLC, dba “Drew Shoe” for patent infringement of its signature cage technology that has allowed them to innovate in the hands-free shoe category.

“Drew Shoe is offering for sale and selling imitation hands-free footwear products that infringe Kizik’s patents in connection with marketing and advertising materials that have been directly and intentionally created to mimic the overall look and feel of Kizik’s brand and marketing approach,” the lawsuit alleged. “Drew Shoe’s recently-announced line of infringing hands-free footwear products are not manufactured or licensed by Kizik, nor is Drew Shoe connected or affiliated with, or authorized by, Kizik in any way.”

According to Kizik, Drew Shoe’s hands-free footwear line incorporates the use of a similar flexible lattice on the heel of the shoe in at least the Connor, Corbin, Caleb, Bobbie, Hobby and Harmony footwear models.

“The infringing products are included in the Drew Shoe ‘Spring/Summer 2025’ catalog and are knock-offs of well-known and patented Kizik technologies,” the lawsuit stated. “On information and belief, Drew Shoe recently advertised, displayed, offered for sale and sold the Drew Shoe infringing products at the Atlanta Shoe Market trade show on or around August 10 to 12, as advertised on Drew Shoe’s Facebook page.”

Kizik also alleged in the lawsuit that Drew Shoe acted with “intentional and bad faith conduct” when designing and promoting its alleged infringing products. This was illustrated in the lawsuit by highlighting Drew Shoe’s “LOOK MA! No Hands, No Hassle, NO KIDDING” advertising, which is substantially similar to Kizik’s original hands-free advertising using its “Look Ma, No Hands” slogan.

According to Kizik, Drew Shoes is not the first brand to have infringed upon its patents, the company said in an email to FN, and the brand is finally cracking down on the copycats. Kizik holds over 200 patents and have mastered the slip-in technology for hands free footwear.

“Protecting Kizik’s innovation is essential to our mission as pioneers in the hands-free footwear category,” Monte Deere, chief executive officer of Kizik, told FN in a statement. “Our patented cage technology sets us apart, and we will not allow imitators to undermine the integrity of our brand. As a leader in innovation, we are taking decisive action to safeguard our intellectual property while also offering opportunities for collaboration across the industry. Kizik remains committed to delivering groundbreaking, hands-free solutions while ensuring the future of our technologies and designs is protected.”

FN has also reached out to Drew Shoes for comment.

James Whitner and The Whitaker Group — the parent company to retailers A Ma Maniére and Social Status — were named in a complaint last year alleging an international money laundering scheme. On Monday, the retailer announced they have been cleared of all allegations.

“Following a thorough investigation by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of North Carolina (USAO) into James Whitner and The Whitaker Group, the office has declined prosecution based upon, among other things, the sufficiency of admissible evidence to support prosecution,” The Whitaker Group wrote in a statement today. “This outcome reaffirms our stance all along of the integrity of our business, the transparency of our operations and the regulatory compliance of all our tools, platforms and processes that allow us to serve both community and consumers effectively.”

The Whitaker Group ended its statement by thanking its vendor partners for their trust and support as it worked through the investigation, and stated it is excited to “keep building a legacy of excellence, telling the stories and building experiences that shape community and culture.”

In November 2023, a civil forfeiture complaint filed in a North Carolina district court stated Whitner was involved in a “trade-based money laundering network” in which he allegedly helped move millions of dollars in illegal funds under the guise of reselling footwear and apparel. Whitner was not charged criminally.

The complaint stated Whitner sold millions of dollars worth of sneakers to a Chinese national, who then resold the products in China and elsewhere. Then, a broker in China would direct Chinese money couriers to collect large sums of cash made from “illegal activity” including, potentially, prostitution. This cash then went to Whitner, the filing said.

These illicit transactions occurred between Nov. 2017 and April 2022 and totaled more than $32 million, according to the complaint. The forfeiture totals about $1,199,530, which was seized in August of 2021 from the residence of Antwain Freeman, Whitner’s close friend, in North Bergen, N.J.

The complaint stated Whitner resold shoes and apparel that were “produced by an Oregon-based manufacturer” that did not allow for these products to be resold to another distributor or broker or outside of the U.S.

Last week, Charlotte-based news organization WSOCTV first reported that Whitner would not file a claim for the nearly $1.2 million that was seized. The report stated attorneys for Whitner and his associates “asked for four extensions in the civil forfeiture,” but did not file a claim by the final deadline.

Additional reporting provided by Shoshy Ciment.

About the Author

Peter Verry is the Senior News and Features Editor for Athletic and Outdoor at Footwear News. He oversees coverage of the two fast-paced and ultracompetitive markets, which includes conducting in-depth interviews with industry leaders and writing stories on sneakers and outdoor shoes. He is a lifelong sneaker addict (and shares his newest purchases via @peterverry on Instagram) and spends most of his free time on a trail. He holds an M.A. in journalism from Hofstra University and can be reached at peter.verry@footwearnews.com.

Skechers is coming after more footwear companies for allegedly infringing on its design patents.

In a lawsuit filed Sept. 4 in the Southern District of New York, Skechers accused Rockport, as well as its parent company Authentic Brands Group and its licensee Marc Fisher, of allegedly making and selling shoes that infringe on Skechers’ patented slip-in technology.

“Defendants [Rockport, Marc Fisher and Authentic] did so without even contacting Skechers to request a license to Skechers’ intellectual property protecting the innovations used in those shoes,” Skechers wrote in the complaint. “Rockport shoes infringe Skechers’ utility patent claims protecting innovations associated with its slip-in footwear technology. By this action, Skechers seeks to stop defendants’ patent infringement and obtain appropriate compensation for that infringement.”

In the lawsuit, Skechers called out Rockport’s Tristen Step Activated Slip On shoes as well as the Tristen Step Activated Lace-Up shoes as the main footwear models that allegedly infringed on its patents. Skechers specifically pointed to the heel cups and upper construction as what was being infringed.

As for why Marc Fisher was named in the suit, the company holds the license to Rockport’s products since it was acquired by Authentic in 2023. In the suit, Skechers said that Marc Fisher “is responsible for the design, production, marketing, e-commerce, and wholesale of the products accused of infringement in this litigation.”

FN has reached out to Authentic Brands Group for comment. Marc Fisher and Skechers declined to comment.

Skechers previously accused several shoe companies, including Laforst Shoes Inc. and Dockers by Gerli of copying its popular slip-in shoe designs.

In April, the company filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court in California that alleged that American Exchange Apparel Group (AEG) infringed on Skechers’ patents related to its “Scalloped Opening” shoe designs, a popular design element on Skechers’ flats. And in June, Skechers sued Steve Madden for allegedly copying one of its identifying design marks.

In July, Skechers sued L.L. Bean for allegedly selling a shoe (the Freeport Shoe) with two of Skechers’ protected heel cup designs.

After a years-long feud, Vans has agreed to settle its trademark infringement lawsuit against parody art collective MSCHF.

In a Tuesday filing in a New York District Court, both parties told a judge that they agreed to the terms of a confidential settlement, which prohibits MSCHF from continuing to sell its “Wavy Baby” shoes that Vans had previously alleged infringed on its trademarks.

Vans declined to comment. FN has reached out to MSCHF for a comment.

According to the initial lawsuit filed in April 2022, Vans argued that MSCHF “blatantly and unmistakably copied Vans’ trademarks and trade dress” as it relates to the marketing, advertising and product packaging for its MSCHF x Tyga “Wavy Baby.”

The shoes appeared to be based on the classic Vans Old-Skool silhouette, though altered to feature a wave-like aesthetic throughout the shoe. The shoes featured a black-based canvas upper coupled with white shoelaces and a wavy white striped overlay panel on the sides.

Vans also alleged that the name “Wavy Baby”is a play on Vans’ WAYVEE mark that the company has used since August 2021.

In response, MSCHF claimed that its Wavy Baby sneakers represented a form of “commentary” and were therefore protected by the First Amendment. Later in April 2022, a federal judge ordered MSCHF to halt marketing, selling, promotion, and fulfillment for the sneakers. And in December 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reaffirmed that decision that MSCHF’s parody of Vans’ “Old Skool” shoes are likely to cause confusion amongst consumers and that the Brooklyn collective is not entitled to First Amendment protections that can apply to works of art in trademark cases.

MSCHF is known for creating viral, irreverent products that stir conversation — and often controversy — online. In 2021, Nike filed a trademark infringement and dilution complaint against MSCHF for selling controversial “Satan Shoes” in connection with Lil Nas X. The shoes were essentially the classic Air Max 97s reimagined with black uppers and red detailing. Only 666 pairs of the shoe, which also contained drops of human blood and sold for $1,018, were meant to be released. Nike and MSCHF reached a settlement, which included a voluntary recall of the shoes that sold, shortly thereafter.

Updated, July 22: The Shoe Surgeon has broken its silence regarding the lawsuit it is facing from Nike.

In a statement on Instagram on Friday, the sneaker customizer said it was “confused” the Nike decided to pursue legal action instead of a discussion but said that it believes the two parties can come to a resolution with “proper dialogue.”

“It’s a dream to collaborate with legendary brands,” The Shoe Surgeon wrote. “Especially with the brand who’s message is for us to believe in something. Who’s message is, it’s only crazy until we do it. The best is yet to come. To be better. To just do it.”

The response came days after FN reported that Nike was suing the The Shoe Surgeon over selling alleged counterfeit Nike products.

What we reported on July 15: Nike is accusing a famous customizer and frequent collaborator of creating an empire built on counterfeit Nike products.

In a suit filed on Monday in the Southern District of New York, the Swoosh alleged that The Shoe Surgeon has attempted “to build an entire multifaceted retail empire” using Nike’s trademark rights by creating and selling counterfeit Nike shoes, and selling classes that teach consumers how to make their own fake Nike shoes. Nike also took issue with The Shoe Surgeon’s common practice of creating “unauthorized collaborations” between Nike shoes and other brands that are not affiliated with or endorsed by Nike.

Nike noted in the suit that it has worked with The Shoe Surgeon on a few one-off commission projects, but the products in question were unrelated to those.

FN has reached out to The Shoe Surgeon for a comment.

In a conversation with FN, Nike said that it tried to resolve the issues with Shoe Surgeon multiple times over the last two years before it eventually took legal action. Nike also noted that despite conversations with The Shoe Surgeon, the customizer continued to scale the business and produce alleged counterfeit products.

“To safeguard our brand and IP, and aligned with Nike’s commitment to protect the consumer from counterfeit Nike product, we are left with no choice but to seek a legal solution to address how the Shoe Surgeon is constructing counterfeit ‘Nike’ footwear from scratch and selling it as officially branded product,” Nike said in a statement. “Further, the Shoe Surgeon is teaching others to create counterfeit ‘Nike’ sneakers. These activities are illegal, deceive consumers and create confusion in the marketplace around source, authenticity and quality of Nike products.”

Nike added that it has no problem with the customizer’s limited, one-off shoes done in tandem with Nike or for clients under Nike-sponsored athletes’ contracts.

The Los-Angeles, Calif.-based Shoe Surgeon is a custom shoe-making business known for its products that blend various brand elements into one design. For example, the company might take a well-known Nike or Birkenstock silhouette and combine it with materials and identifying marks from brands like Louis Vuitton, Lanvin and Gucci.

Nike is the second brand to take legal action against Shoe Surgeon in the last few weeks. Last month, French fashion label Goyard said in a new lawsuit that The Shoe Surgeon used designs that were identical, indistinguishable from, or confusingly similar to Goyard’s protected designs without the brand’s consent. The designs in question were featured on lighters and shoes sold by The Shoe Surgeon. Nike referenced this lawsuit in its recent filing and said that the infringing Goyard products included fake Nike shoes that also featured Goyard’s protected trademarks and trade dress.

Nike has previously sued several sneaker customizers for trademark infringement and selling counterfeit shoes. In 2021, Nike filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against MSCHF, the company that created and sold a number of “Satan Shoes” in collaboration with Lil Nas X in March. The sneakers were based off the Nike Air Max 97 and ultimately recalled by MSCHF after a settlement agreement was reached that same year.

The legal feud between Nike and Odell Beckham Jr. has finally come to an end.

In a Thursday evening Instagram post thanking his legal team and jury, the NFL star stated that “justice was served.” However, neither Beckham nor Nike actually received any monetary award as a result of the trial.

Beckham sued Nike Inc. in November 2022 in a lawsuit claiming that the athletic powerhouse “failed to live up to its promises and refuses to abide by its contract.” According to Beckham, Nike was “willfully withholding millions of dollars” from the longtime Nike athlete and NFL star, who has worked with the Swoosh since 2014. Beckham sought more than $20 million in damages. Nike filed a countersuit shortly after and argued that Beckham violated his contract with Nike by wearing gloves with another brand’s logos during the 2021-2022 NFL season.

Nike said in a statement to FN that Beckham received no monetary reward and that his claims were all decided against him by the jury. Overall, the jury found that neither Nike nor Beckham breached their contacts, so neither had to pay the other.

“The decision confirmed that Nike complied with its commitments,” Nike said in a statement. “Nike is grateful to the jury and the Court for their careful attention to this case.”

“JUST DO……RIGHT @nike,” Beckham wrote in his post on Instagram. “I wanna take this moment to thank God first and foremost thank you Heavenly Father. I wanna thank my team for every hour they have spent preparing on this case. I wanna thank the jury for simply doing what’s right in a world full of wrong… my message to whoever needs this is, STAND UP FOR WHAT YOU BELIEVE IN! JUSTICE WAS SERVED!!!”

Beckham initially agreed to an endorsement deal with Nike in 2014 and extended the contract in 2017, after Nike matched the terms of a competing $47 million deal from Adidas. However, Beckham claimed that while Nike stated its competing offer would match all the terms of Adidas’ offer, Nike changed the language and terms of the agreement as it was finalized to keep guaranteed extensions for the contract based on “earned royalties” rather than “net sales.”

This change, the lawsuit said, “decreased the value of the contract to Mr. Beckham by tens of millions of dollars.” The suit also claimed these changes were made “in bad faith” because Nike did not put out enough royalty-generating product in the market to hit the required amount for the contract to extend. Nike also “intentionally depressed sales” of these products in the last fully guaranteed year of the contract as well, the suit stated.

In the complaint, Beckham claimed Nike failed to provide him a payment of $2 million in 2022 and did not follow through on its obligation to create certain player-edition product offerings, including some that would bear Beckham Jr.’s name.

Crocs and Australian retailer Mosaic Brands Ltd. have settled their trademark infringement lawsuit.

Both brands announced on Thursday that they have resolved their trademark dispute in the Federal Court of Australia. Crocs initially filed a case against Mosaic Brands in 2021, accusing the retailer of selling a product that it said was “deceptively similar” to Crocs’ Classic Clog, according to a release. Crocs argued at the time that its Classic Clog silhouette was protected by trademark registrations in more than 30 countries, including Australia.

While the terms of the settlement were not disclosed, Mosaic agreed to stop making and selling certain molded shoe products and similar styles before year’s end. Both parties agreed to the terms of the settlement without admissions.

“We are pleased that we were able to resolve this dispute amicably, avoiding the need for further expenditure of time and resources by either party on this litigation,” both companies said in a statement.

Recognized for its lightweight clogs, Crocs has actively sought to protect against alleged copycats. In 2022, the clog-maker settled its trademark infringement lawsuit against Walmart after the company filed lawsuits against 21 companies in July 2021, which alleged infringement on its trademarks. The defendants included Walmart Inc., Loeffler Randall Inc. and Hobby Lobby Stores Inc., as well as many lesser-known companies that sell online — or wholesale to retailers such as Walmart.

And in June 2021, Crocs filed a complaint to the United States International Trade Commission (USITC) requesting an investigation into the unlawful import and sale of allegedly infringing footwear.

Skechers is coming after another company for allegedly infringing on its design patents.

In a lawsuit filed Monday in the Southern District of New York, Skechers accused L.L. Bean of selling a shoe ( the Freeport Shoe) with two of Skechers’ protected heel cup designs. Skechers stated in the suit that its shoes with the “unique and eye-catching” heel cup designs have sold “millions of pairs.”

“Only after Skechers incurred the substantial risk and monumental expense of developing and promoting its shoes with these Heel Cup designs, and established that they had broad appeal, did L. L. Bean enter the market with its infringing shoe,” the suit read.

FN has reached out to L.L. Bean for comment. Skechers declined to comment.

Skechers is no stranger to to using legal power to protect its designs. The company previously accused several shoe companies, including Laforst Shoes Inc. and Dockers by Gerli of copying its popular slip-in shoe designs.

In April, the comfort footwear brand filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court in California that alleged that American Exchange Apparel Group (AEG) infringed on Skechers’ patents related to its “Scalloped Opening” shoe designs, a popular design element on Skechers’ flats. And in June, Skechers sued Steve Madden for allegedly copying one of its identifying design marks.

Skechers in April continued its earnings winning streak, posting record sales in the first quarter of 2024. The company reported Q1 net sales of $2.25 billion, up 12.5 percent from $2.0 billion the same period last year. Net earnings were $206.6 million and diluted earnings per share were $1.33 compared with prior year net earnings of $160.4 million and diluted earnings per share of $1.02.

The company behind former President Donald Trump’s sneaker venture is coming after what it claims is counterfeit activity.

45Footwear LLC., which in February launched Donald Trump’s new line of signature sneakers, filed a lawsuit on Monday in Arizona federal court claiming that a group of undisclosed defendants has offered to sell or has sold counterfeit sneakers that infringe on identifying marks featured on Trump’s sneaker line.

The former president and 2024 Republican presidential nominee introduced his line of signature sneakers in February during Sneaker Con in Philadelphia. The shoes — gold high-tops with a T engraved on the side and an American flag on the back of the upper — were available at $399 for pre-order on a website called Gettrumpsneakers.com. According to the site, only 1,000 pairs were available and “at least 10” were autographed by Trump. Two other styles, the “T-Red Wave” in red, and “Potus 45” in white were also available for pre-order.

“The creation of the sneakers is a recent development,” read the suit. “Nonetheless, dozens of unlicensed counterfeiters are already selling counterfeit sneaker, some of which were recently confiscated by the U.S Customs and Border Protection, Field Operations, Orlando Trade Enforcement Team, from a shipment that initiated in Vietnam.”

The suit also noted that the plaintiff had hired an online fraud investigator prior to filing the suit and discovered “businesses and individuals promoting and selling counterfeit sneakers before any authentic sneakers have even been shipped by the Plaintiff.”

The lawsuit seeks $2 million in damages, which includes $25,000 for each copyright violation, or for the defendants to pay all profits that came from the alleged violations.

When Trump launched the shoes earlier this year, footwear industry leaders noted that it represented an ironic move for the politician who, during his presidency, introduced the burdensome Section 301 tariffs on China that have had a direct negative impact on the footwear industry in the U.S., which largely relies on imports from China. These tariffs have contributed to soaring footwear prices in the U.S. and have hurt American businesses and working class consumers.