Vans and a Brooklyn art collective have reached a settlement to end a long-running trademark lawsuit over Tyga‘s “Wavy Baby” sneakers – a parody of the company’s classic Old Skool.
Vans claimed the shoe, released in 2022 by a group called MSCHF, was “blatant” infringement. The creators argued it was legal parody protected by the First Amendment since it was designed to criticize “sneakerhead” consumerist culture. But federal courts repeatedly ruled for Vans.
On Tuesday, attorneys for both sides told a federal judge they had agreed to resolve the lawsuit. MSCHF agreed that the “Wavy Baby” had infringed Vans’ trademarks and agreed to never sell it again. Other terms of the “confidential settlement agreement,” including a potential monetary payment, were not disclosed in court filings. Neither side immediately returned request for comment.
Tyga announced the Wavy Baby in April 2022, sparking plenty of buzz but also immediate comparisons to Vans. Footwear News said the shoe “appears to be loosely based on the classic Vans Old Skool” that had been altered with a “wave-like aesthetic.” The site HighSnobiety went with a bolder headline: “MSCHF & Tyga’s Insane Skate Shoes Look Like Liquified Vans.”
Three days before the shoes were set to drop, Vans filed a lawsuit – claiming MSCHF’s sneakers violated its trademark rights and demanding an immediate restraining order. The lawsuit targeted only MSCHF itself and did not name Tyga (real name: Micheal Stevenson) as a defendant.
Legal trouble was nothing new for MSCHF: the group had previously partnered with Lil Nas X to release a “Satan Shoe” that looked like a pair of Nikes – and had been promptly hit with a similar infringement lawsuit from that sneaker giant. They quickly reached a settlement that saw MSCHF issue voluntary recall on the shoes and offer a buy-back program.
In the case over Tyga’s sneaker, Vans argued that consumers would think Wavy Baby was an authorized product artist endorsement deal rather than a parody by a separate company. The company cited previous partnerships with A$AP Rocky, Metallica and Foo Fighters.
“Given Vans’ history of collaborations with musical artists, on information and belief, the collaboration between MSCHF and Michael Stevenson is intended to deceive consumers into believing they are purchasing a product made by, sponsored by, approved by, or otherwise associated with Vans,” the company’s lawyers wrote at the time.
Unlike the Nike case, MSCHF fought back against the case filed by Vans. It admitted that the Wavy Baby was based on the Old Skool, but said it had a legal right under the First Amendment to use the shoe as “the cultural and physical anchor when creating its art.” The company said it wanted to critique “consumerism inherent in sneakerhead culture” and “the phenomenon of sneaker companies collaborating with anyone to garner clout and shoe sales.”
But a federal judge quickly rejected those arguments and issued a restraining order banning MSCHF from selling any more Wavy Babys. In issuing his ruling, Judge William F. Kuntz said that he – and, more importantly, consumers – didn’t quite get the joke.
“Whatever the actual artistic merits of the Wavy Baby shoes, the shoes do not meet the requirements for a successful parody,” the judge wrote in his April 2022 decision. “While the manifesto accompanying the shoes may contain protected parodic expression, the Wavy Baby shoes and packaging in and of themselves fail to convey the satirical message.”
A federal appeals court later upheld that ruling.
