Every season, we see the resurgence of a classic footwear staple or two. Not too long ago it was the athletic sandal, which the fashion press problematically categorized as a “Teva.” With the recent rise in popularity of the adidas Stan Smith (again), we’ve seen an array of similar tennis shoes hit the runways and the market. Then, of course, for Spring/Summer 2016, we saw a lot of embellished Western boots, a trend that has tide over to F/W 2016, as seen in Jeremy Scott’s studded cowboy-inspired boots. Another interesting one: the Dr. Martens boot, and Givenchy’s interpretation of it for its Spring/Summer 2015 menswear collection (pictured below).

It seems that Dr. Martens, known for its air-cushioned sole, the positioning and coloring of stitching (yellow), and the shape of the boot, itself, has been spurred to take legal action as a result of the recent fashion attention. While the British brand has been somewhat vigilant in taking infringers of its intellectual property to court for some time now, it has stepped up its efforts in the past several years, filing lawsuits against Aeropostale, Urban Outfitters, GoJane.com, Vans, Choies.com (a China-based website that offers an array of fashion copies), Chinese Laundry, and most recently, New York-based brand, Esquire Footwear.

The classic Dr. Martens boot, which has been sold since 1960, is undeniably iconic. As the company states in one of its recent lawsuits, “Over the past 30 years, millions of pairs of boots with the distinctive [Dr. Martens] trade dress have been sold in the United States.” It is upon this trade dress that the company relies when it files lawsuits against its competitors for copying.

Dr. Martens’ Trade Dress

So, what is trade dress and what is Martens’ trade dress in particular? Well, trade dress is a type of trademark law that protects the overall commercial image of a product if that image serves to indicate or identify the source (read: the brand) from which the product comes and distinguish it from those of others. This may include the design of a product, itself, if that design indicates source – the underlying theme for both trademark and trade dress law.

For instance, the appearance of the Birkin bag alone (without a label that indicates the brand name) signifies that it is an Hermès bag. The design elements of the bag itself have become so well known in the minds of consumers that those elements serve as a trademark; they tell the consumer instantly that the bag is from Hermès. This is the essence of a trademark, a legal device that allows consumers to identify brands and gauge the quality associated with that brand and its goods without actually have to sample them. Consider the effect that the Chanel double “C” logo or the brown and gold Louis Vuitton Toile monogram has on consumers. Those things (those trademarks) help consumers to identify the brand responsible for the goods and the level of quality that can be expected: Luxury-level quality in these instances.

In the case of Dr. Martens, the trade dress for its classic boot is as follows: “Longitudinal ribbing and a dark color band over a light color on the outer sole edge, welt stitching, and a tab located at the top back heel of footwear.” It also includes: “The combination of yellow stitching in the welt area and a two-tone grooved sole edge.” There are also trade dress protections that extend to the design of the bottom of the boot sole, as well. With this in mind, when brands replicate the aforementioned design elements in a way that makes it unclear to consumers whether Dr. Martens is in some way affiliated with the end product, the company will likely be liable for trade dress infringement, and in most cases, will be ordered to immediately and permanently refrain from selling the replica goods. The same holds true for when other brands use the “Dr. Martens” name, which is protected by classic trademark law.

Dr. Martens’ Recent Litigation

As indicated above, the famed footwear brand has initiated a number of recent lawsuits, all of which are based on trademark law to some extent. The suit that Dr. Martens filed against Esquire Footwear, a supplier for Forever 21, PacSun, Macy’s, Nordstrom, and Steve Madden, is based on claims of trade dress infringement. In particular, Dr. Martens alleged in its complaint, which was filed in the Southern District of New York earlier this month, that “Esquire copied the trade dress and the overall style and configuration of Dr. Martens boots and shoes and its exact incontestable Dr. Martens sole pattern.”

The brand further alleges: “Esquire intentionally copied Dr. Martens trade dress in its ‘infringing footwear’ in order to capitalize on the reputation and fame of the Dr. Martens brand, which makes this an ‘exceptional case’ of infringement.”

That case is still pending Dr. Martens seeking both preliminary and permanent injunctive relief in order to stop from Esquire manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and/or selling the infringing footwear; an accounting of Esquire’s profits and the number of pairs of infringing footwear sold in the U.S. and internationally, disclosures of its vendors, retailers, suppliers, retailers, and distributors; an award of Esquire’s profits in connection with the infringing footwear, as well as an award of statutory damages in an amount of up to $1 million per trademark used.

Dr. Martens also filed suit against Michael Schutt, the individual who registered two .xyz domain names (drmartensshoestore.xyz and drmartens-shoes.xyz), and sold counterfeit Dr. Martens on the sites.

The boot brand was ultimately awarded the two domains after commencing Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy proceedings through the World Intellectual Property Organization’s Arbitration and Mediation Center. According to its complaint, the disputed domain names were confusingly similar to the Dr. Martens trademark. “The mere addition of the terms ‘shoes’ and ‘shoestore’ does not prevent any likelihood of confusion, as they refer to the product offered for sale by Dr. Martens,” argued the brand. Dr. Martens also accused Schutt of registering the domain names with the intention to “deceive and mislead” consumers by creating a likelihood of confusion.

Andrea Dawson, the World Intellectual Property Organization’s Arbitration and Mediation Center‘s panelist, who heard the case, found that Dr. Marten’s well-known trademark was “clearly visible” in the disputed domain names and that Schutt was making use of a privacy service to conceal his identity, showing that the domain names were being used in bad faith. She ordered that drmartenshoes.xyz and drmartens-shoes.xyz be transferred to Dr. Martens early this month.