Vans, art collective settle trademark dispute over 'Wavy Baby' shoes

Aug 21 (Reuters) - Vans has agreed to settle its lawsuit against art collective MSCHF over its distorted parody versions of Vans' shoes, according to a filing in New York federal court.

The parties told the court on Tuesday that MSCHF will permanently stop selling its "Wavy Baby" shoes and using Vans' trademarks based on the terms of a confidential settlement agreement.

Vans' parent company VF Corp (VFC.N) declined to comment. Attorneys and spokespeople for MSCHF did not immediately respond to requests for comment and more information on the settlement.

MSCHF is a Brooklyn-based conceptual art group 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.

Vans sued MSCHF in April 2022 over its "Wavy Baby" shoes, which alter Vans' classic Old Skool shoe design with an exaggerated "wavy" structure. MSCHF sold all 4,306 pairs of the shoes within an hour of releasing them, four days after Vans filed its lawsuit.

U.S. District Judge William Kuntz later that month preliminarily blocked MSCHF from advertising or fulfilling orders for the shoes, and said Vans was likely to prove that they would cause confusion with the company's trademark-protected design.

MSCHF challenged the decision at the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Its attorney David Bernstein of Debevoise & Plimpton told the court that its cartoonish shoes are not intended "to be worn at all, other than as a statement" on consumerism and sneaker culture.

The 2nd Circuit upheld Kuntz's decision last year, agreeing that MSCHF's shoes were likely to confuse consumers and rejecting the collective's argument that it was entitled to enhanced constitutional protections that can apply to works of art in trademark cases.

The case is Vans Inc v. MSCHF Product Studio Inc, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, No. 1:22-cv-02156.