The American footwear manufacturer Steve Madden has filed an amended lawsuit against Danish fashion brand Ganni, accusing it of anti-competitive behavior and abuse of legal processes to monopolize shared design features in the fashion industry. This legal dispute sheds light on the complex relationships among high-fashion brands and raises questions about the misuse of intellectual property rights.

The legal conflict between Steve Madden and Ganni

At the heart of the case is Steve Madden’s allegation that Ganni uses legal threats to disrupt the sale of its GRAYA and SANDRIA shoe models, claiming these designs copy Ganni’s Buckle Ballerina and Feminine Buckle Two-Strap shoes. However, Ganni admitted in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York that it does not hold rights to these designs in the U.S. and would not file lawsuits against Steve Madden.

On the other hand, Steve Madden argues that the damage has already been done. According to the company, Ganni’s threats have jeopardized its relationships with key wholesale partners such as Nordstrom, Dillard’s, ASOS, and Zalando, resulting in financial losses and reputational harm.

This dispute extends beyond the U.S. Steve Madden’s lawsuit highlights Ganni’s defeats in attempts to protect its designs internationally. The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) revoked the design rights for Buckle Ballerina, concluding that the design lacked sufficient specificity for legal protection. Similarly, a Danish court rejected Ganni’s claims under local copyright laws.

Alleged intimidation tactics

Steve Madden claims that despite its legal setbacks, Ganni has continued to use legal processes and threats as tools for “punishing” and “stifling competition”. These activities, according to the American brand, include intimidating wholesale partners across Europe and the U.S. with claims of rights violations that Ganni failed to legally establish.

In one statement, Steve Madden asserts that Ganni admitted it had no grounds for claims of consumer confusion—a key legal criterion for proving infringement. Instead, Madden alleges, Ganni relies on legal threats and intimidation campaigns to weaken competition.

Steve Madden’s court demands

In its amended lawsuit, Steve Madden seeks:

• a court order prohibiting further anti-competitive activities by Ganni; and
• compensation for damages.

Conclusion

The case of Steve Madden vs. Ganni highlights the boundaries of intellectual property protection and the ethical dilemmas in its enforcement. If the American company succeeds in proving its claims, it could set a precedent for limiting the misuse of legal processes to stifle competition. On the other hand, this dispute underscores the delicate interplay of fashion, law, and business, with potential ramifications not only for the parties involved but for the broader industry.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For further information, feel free to contact us.