Comments on: Balenciaga Sues Steve Madden

By: guest

guest — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 07:57:09 +0000

inspired by most definately but I’m curious if the Baleciaga feels as tech as it looks.if it don’t feel good, forget it.Steve Madden sucks.

By: guest

guest — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 18:11:33 +0000

should have had obtained a/several design patents on the shoe… pretty much the only way to protect an industrial design these days. very useful in protecting shoes.

By: guest

guest — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 09:55:09 +0000

wtf is an AIC?

By: Britt Aboutaleb

Britt Aboutaleb — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 21:55:47 +0000

the picture’s of cintia dicker. she’s our mascot! you can have your own mascot if you click Register on the top right.

By: deathofadame

deathofadame — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 16:27:53 +0000

...it's about time... And #17...Really??? It's just a randon picture. This is a Fashion Blog..lets keep it at that. http://vinesteet.blogspot.com/

By: guest

guest — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 11:55:45 +0000

p.s.: why is guest’s photo a white woman? The image should be blank. Not everyine in the legal field is white.

By: guest

guest — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 11:50:44 +0000

Im pretty sure you can’t claim infringement if the other product has 5 or 6 differences 1) SM’s shoe has white in it /near front 2) the green strap is shaped 3) SM has pink insole 4) SM’s shoe has a green and black buckle instead of simple black strap across the ankle 5) SM has a red and differently shaped patch on the outside while B’s is white 6) SM’s curvature of shoe near ankle is shaped differently. I dont work for either company or own either shoe-just into fashion, SM’s look better and probably are cheaper…

By: Kristina M.

Kristina M. — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 06:38:03 +0000

The fact that the shoes are so expensive won’t help them in their trademark claims. Consumers who purchase luxury goods are deemed to be more sophisticated thereby lessening the likelihood of confusion. You can’t win a trademark suit without demonstrating likelihood of confusion (unless you’re claiming dilution).

By: guest

guest — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 00:19:59 +0000

to 9,
You cannot have a trade dress that is protectible until you have “secondary meaning”. That means that people have to recognize the style element as a mark of your brand, like Adidas’ 3 stripes or CL’s red soles. This shoes design is NEW, so unless the lego shoe would be instantly recognizable as a balenciaga shoe to an AVERAGE consumer of the good (read that not necessarily a fashionista commenter) then they have no trade dress claim.
likewise, unless they have a design patent (the ONLY actual protection for fashion designs), they are SOL!

By: Tian

Tian — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 22:04:12 +0000

The shoe is hideous, I can’t see why anyone would want to copy that.

By: guest

guest — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 21:48:38 +0000

Ha- Did Balenciaga fairly use the likeness Lego blocks?

By: guest

guest — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 21:15:05 +0000

These shoes or disgusting… the judge should enjoin both parties from producing these shoes sua sponte

By: guest

guest — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 20:47:16 +0000

Though you cant copyright a shoe, you can sue a copy cat under the theory of trade dress infringement. Many designers have done this over the past few years, including Addidas, successfully so (Addidas won against Steve Madden a while back when Madden copied the triple stripe on a sneaker). Trade dress is the overall impression of a product, and its not a clear cut as copyright or trademark, but is a species of trademark law. Trade dress is a designer’s best bet under current law, until the Piracy Bill gets a final decision from Congress.

By: guest

guest — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 20:29:54 +0000

obviously this is pretty blatant, but there are some small differences. i bet this ends up going no where because of that.

By: guest

guest — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 20:28:18 +0000

I feel like…once you wait this long, you’ll have no standing to sue. Now, Balenciaga isn’t really directly affected by either shoe.
Neither shoe is being sold anymore anyways so…
Just a hot mess, really.