The New York-based brand initially filed a lawsuit against the Danish brand in July, alleging illegal business interference and libel. The complaint also asked that the judge hand down declaratory judgments stating that Steve Madden had not infringed on Ganni’s copyrights, patents or trade dress. 

That’s because, it alleged, Ganni had interfered with its business by sending cease-and-desist orders to its retail partners, like Nordstrom and Dillard’s, over its Graya flat and Sandria sandal, which resemble Ganni’s Feminine Buckle Ballerina and Feminine Buckle Two-Strap Sandal styles. 

Over the past several months, drama has ensued as the companies duke it out over their respective shoe game. Last month, Ganni filed a response to Steve Madden’s complaint, which focused primarily on defending the brand against the libel and business interference claims while glossing over the request for declaratory judgment on the other claims. 

A few days after it filed that response, Ganni wrote a letter to the presiding judge, Brian Cogan, noting that it would file a motion to dismiss the claims Steve Madden sought declaratory judgment on. It said that was because, given the evidence, the court didn’t have jurisdiction to rule on such a claim, primarily because it had not secured a copyright registration or patent for the styles in question in the United States. 

That Ganni could not prove it had any legal ownership over the two styles also served as the basis of many of Steve Madden’s arguments in the initial complaint; the company repeatedly asserted that Ganni lacked legal rights to interfere with its business because it didn’t have any intellectual property rights applicable to the products Steve Madden sold to its merchants and to consumers. 

In the letter to Cogan, Ganni also noted that it had already—and would again attempt to—present Steve Madden’s counsel with a Covenant Not to Sue. Effectively, that document stated that Ganni could not pursue legal action against Steve Madden in the U.S. over its Graya flat, Sandria sandal or other similar designs. Ganni noted that though it had extended several versions of that covenant to Steve Madden, the company had not signed it as of last month. 

That has since changed; legal records show the two companies agreed to the covenant, which also effectively nullifies Steve Madden’s requests for declaratory judgment on the copyright, trade dress and patent issues. 

As such, Steve Madden needed to file an updated version of its complaint, striking those claims. 

It did so on Dec. 6, though it did not change its stance on the libel and business interference claims. In fact, the company only sought to bolster its claims with Ganni’s admission that it does not own intellectual property rights on its ballet flat styles in the U.S., noting that Ganni “has set out on a war path to punish and stifle legitimate competition, without regard to its lack of legitimate rights.” 

“Ganni’s actions threatening Steve Madden’s customers in the United States, for selling designs in the United States over which Ganni has now admitted it has no rights, is intentional, in bad faith and with malice,” Steve Madden wrote. “Ganni is aggressively and intentionally targeting Steve Madden’s customers abroad as well, based on non-existent rights. It has filed actions and/or threatened to file actions against retailers like Huset Torre, Ellos, Asos, Tiffany, AboutYou, Zalando and Boozt in Europe, all in an effort to intentionally harm Steve Madden.” 

The two companies have parallel legal action pending on Ganni’s turf in Denmark. 

“Ganni and Steve Madden are simultaneously in active litigation in Denmark…regarding the production of a similar but different shoe by Steve Madden’s corporate counterpart—Steve Madden Europe,” the company wrote in its new complaint.

Ganni is expected to file its response to Steve Madden’s new U.S. complaint by early January.

The agency came after GOAT for alleged violations of an FTC rule requiring reasonable shipping practices as well as an alleged failure to honor the platform’s “Buyer Protection” policy. A complaint filed by the FTC on Monday accused GOAT of failing to offer consumers the proper refunds for shipping when an order was delayed. According to the FTC, 37 percent of orders that paid extra for the “Instant” shipping option were shipped later than promised and improperly compensated. The complaint also said that more than 16 percent of all “Next Day” orders were shipped later than promised without offering the customer the option to agree to the delay or cancel the order and receive a refund.

GOAT said in a statement that 99.84 percent of the reviewed sample data for its shipped products were shipped or received on time. The platform attributed the FTC’s 37 percent calculation to a misinterpretation of the data.

“We settled this matter in order to avoid costly and time-consuming litigation,” GOAT said in a statement.

The FTC complaint also alleged that GOAT did not offer an effective program to sort through return requests for deficient products, which led to several consumers being denied refunds. According to the complaint, consumers had to make requests to customer service before getting refunds (which often excluding shipping costs) for their purchases.

“When an online business promises to protect consumers’ purchases, it must have the appropriate systems in place to make sure those protections can be implemented,” said Samuel Levine, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, in a statement. “Forcing consumers to jump through hoops or keep complaining in order to get a promised refund is also unacceptable under the law.”

In its statement, GOAT said that the customer complaints cited in the filing represent “roughly 0.008 percent of sample data orders, and were the result of minor error.”

“We’re confident in the products we sell and the way we sell them, and we will continue to provide our members with an experience that meets our and their high standards,” GOAT said in the statement.

GOAT paid $2,013,527 in customer refunds as part of the court order from the FTC. The order also prohibited GOAT from misrepresenting the relief it offers consumers in the event of a deficient product and prohibits the misrepresentation of its return policies in general.

Nike sued the The Shoe Surgeon in July and claimed the shoe customizer 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. In a Monday response to the lawsuit, The Shoe Surgeon denied Nike’s claims, describing them as “false allegations” and “deleterious lies” as part of a general “smear campaign.”

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.

“The Shoe Surgeon never makes and has never made a Nike shoe from scratch, as in from only raw materials or even a non-Nike shoe, but instead always starts with authentic Nike shoes — already bought from Nike — then customizes them,” the response from The Shoe Surgeon read. “The same is true for what The Shoe Surgeon has taught students who have taken part in its classes: The Shoe Surgeon never teaches and has never taught making a Nike shoe from anything other than a Nike shoe.”

Nike noted in the initial lawsuit that it had worked with The Shoe Surgeon on a few one-off commission projects. The Shoe Surgeon pointed out in his response that Nike continued to request projects from his company even after it sent a letter in August 2023 that detailed concerns about his work. For example, Nike commissioned The Shoe Surgeon to create a custom pair of Jordan 4s for Usher to wear at the 2024 Super Bowl, the filing said.

The Shoe Surgeon also said Nike’s statement to the media after it filed its initial complaint had a negative effect on his business.

“Those false statements were written maliciously and calculated to prevent others — individuals or businesses — from dealing with The Shoe Surgeon,” the response read. “Nike’s deleterious lies had that intended result, with members of the public expressing shock and dismay that The Shoe Surgeon makes fakes, and multiple business partners cutting ties.”

In July, Nike told FN that it tried to resolve the issues with Shoe Surgeon multiple times over the last two years before it eventually took legal action.

“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 July 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.”

FN reached out to Nike for a follow-up statement and to The Shoe Surgeon for comment.

Nike was the second brand to take legal action against Shoe Surgeon in the span of a few weeks. In June, French fashion label Goyard said in a 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 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.

In a lawsuit filed in the Southern District of New York on Monday, Lululemon shareholder James Wong alleged that shortcomings in the retailer’s diversity, equity and inclusion programs, as well as concealed inventory issues that led to a botched launch for a new line of leggings, significantly impacted the company’s share price.

In October of 2020, Lululemon launched an “Impact Agenda” that included a focus on the company’s “Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, and Action” (IDEA) efforts through 2025. The long-term strategy included a commitment to invest $75 million into wellbeing programs by 2025 and a goal to expand to full pay equity for its employees by 2022. But according to a recent article from Business of Fashion, which was cited in the lawsuit, Lululemon created culture that was “unwelcoming of Black people.”

“IDEA was not structured so as to meaningfully combat discrimination within Lululemon,” the lawsuit alleged. “And as a result, Lululemon employees continued to experience discriminatory treatment.”

The article also alleged that Lululemon concealed broader inventory allocation issues, especially in the Americas region. Lululemon’s stock price fell from $478.84 to $403.19 within a day when these issues were revealed in March of 2024, the complaint noted. Eventually, more issues prompted Lululemon to pause the launch of its Breezethrough leggings in July 2024, which also negatively impacted the share price.

“As officers and/or directors of a publicly held company, the Individual Defendants had a duty to promptly disseminate accurate and truthful information regarding the Company’s operations, finances, financial condition, and present and future business prospects so that the market price of the Company’s stock would be based on truthful and accurate information,” the suit said.

FN reached out to Lululemon for a comment.

Lululemon in August reported mixed second-quarter results that missed Wall Street’s revenue expectations for the first time in over two years. The second quarter also saw the fumbled launch of the Breezethrough leggings, which was pulled shortly after introduction when customers complained about how they fit.

Both parties had been engaged in several legal arguments since the brand terminated its partnership with West’s Yeezy label in 2021 after the designer made a series of public antisemitic remarks.

According to the report, Adidas chief executive officer Bjørn Gulden told reporters in a conference call that there are no more “open issues” with West and that the pair had settled the issues without exchanging any money.

“There were tensions on many issues, and… when you put the claims on the right side and you put the claims on the left side, both parties said we don’t need to fight anymore and withdrew all the claims,” Gulden said, according to a Reuters report.

In 2023, Adidas began selling some Yeezy inventory and donated a portion of proceeds to organizations representing people who “were hurt” by Kanye West’s antisemitic comments. While the Yeezy termination had a negative impact on Adidas’ results for several quarters initially, the company has since recovered and has bolstered other parts of its core business to make up for losses.

This month, Adidas raised its guidance for the year after reporting better-than-expected results for the third quarter. Currency-neutral revenues, minus Yeezy sales, were were up 14 percent in the quarter.

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.

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.

“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.

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.

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.