HIGH-END DESIGNER SHOE/CLOTHES/ACCESSORIES/WAYW THREAD
- Thread in 'Sneaker Showcase' Thread starter Started by rfx45,
- Start date
- 8,291
- 7,533
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2013
Saks Atlanta got some in don’t know what all sizes came in but there’s a decent amount in stock for the moment
- 32,910
- 38,516
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2012
- 10,843
- 16,016
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2013
How do they not face litigation from Nike? Dior, that is.
Saks Atlanta got some in don’t know what all sizes came in but there’s a decent amount in stock for the moment
- 8,291
- 7,533
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2013
I’m sure the same reason McQueen doesn’t from adidas
- 73,275
- 60,066
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2004
the chuck taylor design?
i believe that is an ongoing battle by nike, i read this last year iirc:
Federal Circuit revives Converse’s Chuck Taylor trademark and infringement claims
In a recent decision that illustrates the relevance of timing in evaluating the question of secondary meaning, the Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit breathed new life into Converse’s “Chuck Taylor” sneaker design trademark by vacating an earlier ruling by the International Trade Commission (ITC) invalidating protection for that same mark.
Background
Relying upon use of its sneaker design dating back to 1946, in 2013 Converse obtained a trademark registration for its “Chuck Taylor” sneaker design described as “the design of the two stripes on the midsole of the shoe, the design of the toe cap, the design of the multi-layered toe bumper featuring diamonds and line patterns, and the relative position of these elements to each other”. Shortly thereafter, Converse filed suit before the ITC against dozens of U.S. companies seeking to exclude the importation of sneaker designs and argued they infringe upon and dilute their product design trademark.
In 2016, the ITC invalidated Converse’s trademark registration and rejected their claim of common law trademark rights for failure to demonstrate secondary meaning. Relying on the Supreme Court’s guidance in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc v. Samara Bros., 529 US 205, 213-214 (2000), the ITC held that Converse’s mark, a product configuration, could not be considered inherently distinctive as a matter of law, and thus was not entitled to either registration or protection as a trademark absent a showing that the configuration had acquired distinctiveness in the minds of the relevant consuming public. Marketplace exclusivity is an important prerequisite for protection because where design elements are widely used and common, they cannot identify a particular source.
The ITC was persuaded in its determination by evidence offered by the defendants reflecting that various elements of the Chuck Taylor shoe design were allegedly in use by numerous third parties prior to the PTO’s grant of registration. For the ITC, such evidence established that a significant percentage of average consumers associated the Chuck Taylor design with multiple sources, and not just with Converse. The ITC found that this renders the design incapable of identifying a single source and thereby devoid of the required secondary meaning for protection.
The Appellate Court disagreed
Last week, on appeal, the Federal Circuit vacated the ITC’s ruling finding the ITC had erred both in its invalidity and infringement determinations, and directing that the proper time period for consideration of the presence or absence of secondary meaning was in the five years leading up to Converse’s application filing date. “Uses older than five years should only be considered relevant if there is evidence that such uses were likely to have impacted consumers’ perceptions of the mark as of the relevant date.” The ITC’s focus on older third party use evidence was improper according to the Federal Circuit.
Upon remanding the case back to the ITC, the Court mandated that Converse establish, without the benefit of the presumption of validity that would follow from a federal registration, that its mark had acquired secondary meaning prior to the first infringing use by each defendant. The Court rejected the defendants’ arguments that Converse had waived any claim that its mark had acquired secondary meaning without the benefit of that presumption. In addition, the ITC was directed to weigh Converse’s “length, degree, and exclusivity of use” in combination rather than as separate factors and to more rigorously evaluate whether the allegedly infringing products were “substantially similar” to the protected trade dress in the eyes of “an ordinary observer”.
U.S. Circuit Judge Kathleen M. O’Malley dissented on multiple grounds emphasizing that the majority had ruled on issues it need not address in the appeal. In particular, she argued that the majority should not have ruled on the issue of the validity of Converse’s trademark registration, as the timing of its issuance was long after the defendants sold their products.
Comment
The Chuck Taylor sneaker was first introduced to the marketplace as a basketball shoe in 1932, regaining popularity and market share in the 1980s and 1990s. As a landmark of popular culture, the Chuck Taylor was imitated by numerous designers and derivative products – a fact on which the defendants relied to argue that the design was essentially a victim of its own success and thereby no longer associated with a single source. The flip side of such an argument, of course, is to question the rationale behind and value of incorporating these same features into new products unless they continue to convey the positive associations and cool factor of their original source.
The roster of parties that will return for consideration before the ITC is much reduced from the original 30 plus defendants – with only New Balance, Sketchers, and HU Liquidation remaining in the fight. Converse now can continue these proceedings with tailwind supporting its case. Stay tuned.
i believe that is an ongoing battle by nike, i read this last year iirc:
Federal Circuit revives Converse’s Chuck Taylor trademark and infringement claims
In a recent decision that illustrates the relevance of timing in evaluating the question of secondary meaning, the Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit breathed new life into Converse’s “Chuck Taylor” sneaker design trademark by vacating an earlier ruling by the International Trade Commission (ITC) invalidating protection for that same mark.
Background
Relying upon use of its sneaker design dating back to 1946, in 2013 Converse obtained a trademark registration for its “Chuck Taylor” sneaker design described as “the design of the two stripes on the midsole of the shoe, the design of the toe cap, the design of the multi-layered toe bumper featuring diamonds and line patterns, and the relative position of these elements to each other”. Shortly thereafter, Converse filed suit before the ITC against dozens of U.S. companies seeking to exclude the importation of sneaker designs and argued they infringe upon and dilute their product design trademark.
In 2016, the ITC invalidated Converse’s trademark registration and rejected their claim of common law trademark rights for failure to demonstrate secondary meaning. Relying on the Supreme Court’s guidance in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc v. Samara Bros., 529 US 205, 213-214 (2000), the ITC held that Converse’s mark, a product configuration, could not be considered inherently distinctive as a matter of law, and thus was not entitled to either registration or protection as a trademark absent a showing that the configuration had acquired distinctiveness in the minds of the relevant consuming public. Marketplace exclusivity is an important prerequisite for protection because where design elements are widely used and common, they cannot identify a particular source.
The ITC was persuaded in its determination by evidence offered by the defendants reflecting that various elements of the Chuck Taylor shoe design were allegedly in use by numerous third parties prior to the PTO’s grant of registration. For the ITC, such evidence established that a significant percentage of average consumers associated the Chuck Taylor design with multiple sources, and not just with Converse. The ITC found that this renders the design incapable of identifying a single source and thereby devoid of the required secondary meaning for protection.
The Appellate Court disagreed
Last week, on appeal, the Federal Circuit vacated the ITC’s ruling finding the ITC had erred both in its invalidity and infringement determinations, and directing that the proper time period for consideration of the presence or absence of secondary meaning was in the five years leading up to Converse’s application filing date. “Uses older than five years should only be considered relevant if there is evidence that such uses were likely to have impacted consumers’ perceptions of the mark as of the relevant date.” The ITC’s focus on older third party use evidence was improper according to the Federal Circuit.
Upon remanding the case back to the ITC, the Court mandated that Converse establish, without the benefit of the presumption of validity that would follow from a federal registration, that its mark had acquired secondary meaning prior to the first infringing use by each defendant. The Court rejected the defendants’ arguments that Converse had waived any claim that its mark had acquired secondary meaning without the benefit of that presumption. In addition, the ITC was directed to weigh Converse’s “length, degree, and exclusivity of use” in combination rather than as separate factors and to more rigorously evaluate whether the allegedly infringing products were “substantially similar” to the protected trade dress in the eyes of “an ordinary observer”.
U.S. Circuit Judge Kathleen M. O’Malley dissented on multiple grounds emphasizing that the majority had ruled on issues it need not address in the appeal. In particular, she argued that the majority should not have ruled on the issue of the validity of Converse’s trademark registration, as the timing of its issuance was long after the defendants sold their products.
Comment
The Chuck Taylor sneaker was first introduced to the marketplace as a basketball shoe in 1932, regaining popularity and market share in the 1980s and 1990s. As a landmark of popular culture, the Chuck Taylor was imitated by numerous designers and derivative products – a fact on which the defendants relied to argue that the design was essentially a victim of its own success and thereby no longer associated with a single source. The flip side of such an argument, of course, is to question the rationale behind and value of incorporating these same features into new products unless they continue to convey the positive associations and cool factor of their original source.
The roster of parties that will return for consideration before the ITC is much reduced from the original 30 plus defendants – with only New Balance, Sketchers, and HU Liquidation remaining in the fight. Converse now can continue these proceedings with tailwind supporting its case. Stay tuned.
- 28,090
- 52,735
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2007
This is why I can’t rock them..they look too much like converse.
I’m not a fan of chucks, let alone $1K.
Last edited:
- 216
- 311
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2017
I just think a $1000 for a Chuck design rip is kinda wild.
- 3,903
- 918
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2007
I agree with you fam. After seeing them in person i just had to have em. And I know they won’t make it to sale
42 in triple s is a Us sz 9.. I should go a whole size Down than my usual sz 10 in Jordan’s?
- 32,910
- 38,516
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2012
Bruh I work high end retail, I know these sizes.
Get your Triple S size and thank me later.
- 28,090
- 52,735
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2007
Looks clean but not my cup of tea:
Almost looks like the Coach version some years back
Almost looks like the Coach version some years back
Last edited:
JPS
formerly instagram
- 30,470
- 35,341
- Joined
- May 4, 2015
damb they gon make the jacquard print into cornball steeze real fast smh
- 24,441
- 22,115
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2015
Sick!
- 249
- 771
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2013
What’s going on y’all! Found this thread after a recent purchase of the triple s. I usually wear a US 11 but the 44 was a bit snug so I went with the 45 which seems to be the opposite of what a lot of folks in here say about the sizing.
Looking to cop the Dior B22’s next but can’t seem to find the black w/ gum bottom or the black/red/neon pair in a size 44. Any help would be appreciated.
Looking to cop the Dior B22’s next but can’t seem to find the black w/ gum bottom or the black/red/neon pair in a size 44. Any help would be appreciated.
- 73,275
- 60,066
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2004
rickXbirkenstock
i wonder if rocky has on an old pair of rick dunks here or are they re-releasing them because this pair would be had w/o hesitation
i wonder if rocky has on an old pair of rick dunks here or are they re-releasing them because this pair would be had w/o hesitation
- 10,843
- 16,016
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2013
Don't mess with ROs, but em collabs up there would look better as high(er?) tops.
Looks like every other sock ciaga done put out.
Sick!
- 32,910
- 38,516
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2012
You are literally the first person to ever say the Triple S runs small. I work high end retail, everyone and their mama has Triple S (relatively speaking) and always have either TTS or gone down.
- 249
- 771
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2013
Maybe it was a poor choice of words. The 44 fit but was a bit snug for my liking. After having turf toe multiple times from working out, I like my shoes with some room in the toe area which is why I went with the 45.
- 24,441
- 22,115
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2015
Since you work high end retail and know all things high end retail, can you speak on Speed Trainer sizing - for instance - I am a 10.5, but my choices are 10 or 11 in US sizing... what would you recommend, based on your high end retail experience?
- 32,910
- 38,516
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2012
10, but if its a lighter color go 11 cause you dont want your toes to poke through the sock.
- 73,275
- 60,066
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2004
cut your toenails
- 24,441
- 22,115
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2015
I’ve heard and read differing views on the lockdown of the shoe... what can you say about the heel lockdown? Is there slippage?
- 249
- 771
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2013
They’re as low as can be lol
- 249
- 771
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2013
Any stock available on the b22s in a 44 or 44.5, please let me know
