Vans wins appeal in bid to ban art collective's 'Wavy Baby' shoes

Dec 5 (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court on Tuesday upheld an early victory for Vans in its bid to block sales of art collective MSCHF's "Wavy Baby" shoes, a parody of Vans' "Old Skool" shoe design that it accused of infringing its trademarks.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that MSCHF's shoes were likely to confuse consumers and that the collective was not entitled to enhanced constitutional protections that can apply to works of art in trademark cases.

Representatives for Vans and MSCHF did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Vans sued MSCHF for trademark infringement in Brooklyn federal court last April. U.S. District Judge William Kuntz preliminarily blocked sales of the shoes later that month.

MSCHF is a Brooklyn-based conceptual art collective that specializes in satirizing consumer culture. It was separately sued by Nike in 2021 over its collaboration with rapper Lil Nas X on "Satan Shoes" — customized Nike Air Max 97 sneakers that purportedly contained a drop of human blood — in a case that later settled.

Last year the studio released its Wavy Baby shoes, which distort Vans' Old Skool design with an exaggerated "wavy" structure, in collaboration with rapper Tyga.

The 2nd Circuit on Tuesday agreed with the district court that Vans' case should not be subject to higher scrutiny based on constitutional protections for parody works of art.

The appeals court said the First Amendment did not apply because MSCHF was using Vans' trademarks as trademarks to "brand its own products," citing a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision for Jack Daniel's against dog toys that parodied its whiskey bottles.

The three-judge panel also agreed that the ban was justified because MSCHF's shoes were likely to create confusion, noting the similarity of the designs, Vans' history of collaborating with artists and evidence that consumers had actually been confused about the source of the shoes.

The case is Vans Inc v. MSCHF Product Studio Inc, 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 22-1006.