- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Sketchers Complains Against LL Bean In US District Court For Replicating Shoes
Sketchers Complains Against LL Bean In US District Court For Replicating Shoes
Seeks unspecified damages, including triple damages for willful infringement, and to stop sales of the infringed footwear
Footwear maker Sketchers USA Inc has sued LL Bean, accusing the clothing and outdoor gear company of illegally copying its shoes.
In the Skechers USA Inc et al v LL Bean Inc case, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court - Southern District of New York.
Sketchers blamed LL Bean's Freeport casual shoes for infringing upon two patented designs for ‘heel cups’ around the back of the foot.
The world's third-largest footwear company called its designs "unique and eye-catching" because they use "graceful, sweeping, gently rolling lines and slopes" resembling the shape of a heel.
Sketchers stated, "Only after Sketchers incurred substantial risk and monumental expense of developing and promoting shoes with these heel cup designs, and established that they had broad appeal, LL Bean entered the market with its infringing shoes.”
The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, including triple damages for willful infringement, and to stop sales of the infringed shoes.
Skechers has sued at a time when many Americans concerned about inflation are keeping a lid on discretionary spending.
The Freeport shoes, sharing the name of LL Bean's Maine hometown, retail for $99 on its website.
Founded in 1912, LL Bean is privately held, whereas, Skechers was founded 80 years later and is based in Manhattan Beach, California.