Easy Spirit, LLC v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc.

• Decision Date: 26 January 2021
• Docket Number: 19cv3299
• Citation: 515 F.Supp.3d 47
• Parties: EASY SPIRIT, LLC, Plaintiff, v. SKECHERS U.S.A., INC. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

515 F.Supp.3d 47

EASY SPIRIT, LLC, Plaintiff,

v.SKECHERS U.S.A., INC. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II, Defendants.

19cv3299

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

Signed January 26, 2021

Cassandra M. Tam, Jason Howard Kasner, Mark I. Peroff, Darren Wayne Saunders, Peroff Saunders P.C., New York, NY, for Plaintiff.

Andrew James Ligotti, Alston & Bird, LLP, New York, NY, Robert L. Lee, Pro Hac Vice, Alston & Bird, Atlantic, GA, Emily Chambers Welch, Michelle W. Wilco, Alston & Bird LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Defendants.

OPINION & ORDER

WILLIAM H. PAULEY III, Senior United States District Judge:

Plaintiff Easy Spirit, LLC ("Easy Spirit") brings this trademark and trade dress infringement action against Defendants Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II (collectively, "Skechers") under the Lanham Act and New York law. Easy Spirit claims that Skechers has infringed on its trademark and trade dress rights in the name and design of its "Traveltime" shoe. As a result, Easy Spirit brings the following claims against Skechers: (1) trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)(a) ; (2) false designation of origin under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) ; (3) New York common law trademark and trade dress infringement; and (4) dilution under N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law ("GBL") § 360-l. Skechers moves for summary judgment on all of Easy Spirit's claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. For the following reasons, Skechers’ motion is granted in part and denied in part.

BACKGROUND

Unless otherwise noted, the following facts are undisputed.

I. Easy Spirit and the Traveltime Shoe

Easy Spirit designs and sells women's comfort footwear. (Defs.’ Reply to Pl.’s Counterstatement of Additional Material Facts, ECF No. 87 ("Reply 56.1"), ¶ 291.) In 2004, Easy Spirit's predecessors-in-interest introduced the Traveltime shoe—"a light-weight slip-on mule style [shoe] with an open back" that is "designed for maximum comfort and easy wearing." (Pl.’s Counterstatement of Material Facts, ECF No. 80 ("Counterstatement"), ¶ 1.) In 2014, the Traveltime brand name was registered as a trademark on the Principal Register of the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"). (Counterstatement ¶ 2.)¹ The registered Traveltime trademark "consists of standard characters without claim to any particular font style, size, or color." (Decl. of Darren W. Saunders, ECF No. 80-2 ("Saunders Decl."), Ex. 41.)

The Traveltime shoe is—or has been—sold in department stores like Macy's, Nordstrom Rack, and Bealls, as well as in footwear catalogs, independent shoe stores, and on the internet. (Reply 56.1 ¶ 357.) Easy Spirit claims that the Traveltime shoe has been its best-selling product each year since the shoe's inception, (Counterstatement ¶ 295), and that over 11 million pairs have been sold to date, (Counterstatement ¶ 259). Easy Spirit also claims that the Traveltime shoe has garnered "accolades in the media," (Decl. of Mark DeZao in Supp. of Pl.’s Opp'n to Defs.’ Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 80-3 ("DeZao Decl."), ¶ 13), and that the shoe has been described as "iconic," (Counterstatement ¶ 360). Skechers disputes the Traveltime shoe's sales success and media renown, claiming that Easy Spirit cannot substantiate Traveltime sales before 2017, (see Counterstatement ¶¶ 260–66), and that few media sources have praised—or even discussed—the shoe's design, (see Counterstatement ¶¶ 267–78).

Given the Traveltime shoe's purported popularity, Easy Spirit claims that the shoe's "unique combination of design elements" constitutes a protectable trade dress. (Compl., ECF No. 1, ¶ 20; Counterstatement ¶ 8.) Those "elements" are: (i) a slip-on, clog-style upper; (ii) a "swirl" midsole that runs from the base of the toe cap, gradually widening as it flows to the heel; (iii) an indented curved line along the midsole from the front to the heel and another indented line on the rear of the shoe; (iv) a combined contoured midsole/outsole with an arch that creates an open area between the outsole and heel; (v) a rubber outsole extending up from the bottom of the shoe to the front of the shoe to form a bumper; and (vi) four circular design elements on the midsole at the heel. (Compl. ¶ 21; DeZao Decl. ¶ 7.) All six elements are labeled in the following representative photograph of a Traveltime shoe:

(Compl. ¶ 21).

II. Skechers’ Commute and Commute Time Shoes

Skechers is a global shoe brand that designs lifestyle and performance footwear. (Counterstatement ¶ 3.) In 2017, Skechers designed a new open-back shoe called the "Commute" for its "Modern Comfort" division and began selling it in February 2018. (Counterstatement ¶¶ 4–5.)

Skechers claims the Commute shoe was the brainchild of Jessica Baruch, the company's Senior Director of Merchandising and Product Development. (Counterstatement ¶¶ 22, 25.) Baruch allegedly wanted to launch a new shoe that drew inspiration from an already-existing line of Skechers shoes called the "D'Lite." (Counterstatement ¶ 25.) To that end, Baruch requested that the Commute shoe feature decorative elements called "chicklets" found on the heel of the D'Lite shoe. (Decl. of Jessica Baruch, ECF No. 54 ("Baruch Decl."), ¶ 7; Decl. of Emily C. Welch, ECF No. 59 ("Welch Decl."), Ex. P, at 48:11–49:9.)

Easy Spirit rejects Baruch's narrative, claiming that Skechers’ true inspiration for the Commute shoe was the Traveltime shoe, which Skechers intended to copy "as close[ly] as possible." (Counterstatement ¶ 26.) Easy Spirit also disputes that the decision to create the Commute shoe was made by Baruch and claims that Skechers’ CEO, Robert Greenberg, played a role in the decision-making process. (Counterstatement ¶ 25.) Indeed, in March 2017, Baruch received an email with the subject line "Memo from Robert," stating in pertinent part: "A nice idea for the ‘Travel Time’ [competitive versions] that you're doing is that you do it also in a lace-up version also." (Counterstatement ¶ 335; Saunders Decl., Ex. 3, at 42:4–16.)

Regardless of who came up with the idea, the parties agree that Savva Teteriatnikov served as Skechers’ lead designer for the Commute shoe. (Counterstatement ¶¶ 21, 27.) Specifically, Teteriatnikov designed the shoe's outsole (the hard bottom of the shoe) and midsole (the periphery of the bottom), as well as some of the shoe's initial upper patterns (the material on top of the shoe). (Decl. of Savva Teteriatnikov, ECF No. 56 ("Teteriatnikov Decl."), ¶¶ 5–6.) When designing the Commute shoe, Teteriatnikov examined other Skechers shoes, as well as third-party shoes, for inspiration. (Teteriatnikov Decl. ¶ 10.) One of the third-party shoes that Teteriatnikov examined was a Traveltime shoe that was "laying around" his office. (Reply 56.1 ¶ 303.) He found certain dimensions of the Traveltime shoe to be appealing and sent the shoe to an affiliate factory in China. (Reply 56.1 ¶ 303; Teteriatnikov Decl. ¶ 13.) Teteriatnikov instructed the factory to use the "[s]ame exact outsole width[ ] and midsole height[ ]" as the Traveltime shoe in constructing a prototype of the outsole and midsole that he designed for the Commute shoe. (Reply 56.1 ¶ 303; Saunders Decl., Ex. 6D.) He believed it would be easier for workers at the factory to take those precise measurements than it would have been for him to do so in his office—a claim that Easy Spirit disputes. (Counterstatement ¶ 34; Teteriatnikov Decl. ¶ 13.) Once Teteriatnikov received the Commute midsole/outsole prototype, he compared it against a Traveltime shoe. (Reply 56.1 ¶ 304.) At some point during the design process, Teteriatnikov inserted two chicklets into the heel of the Commute shoe. (Welch Decl., Ex. B ("Teteriatnikov Deposition Tr."), at 165:12–69:22; see Saunders Decl., Ex. 6E.) Because the chicklets were also present on the heels of the D'Lite and other Skechers shoes, Teteriatnikov considered their addition to the Commute shoe to be "part of the Skecher-izing process." (Teteriatnikov Deposition Tr., at 165:12–66:18.)

As the design process continued, a retail buyer for Bealls emailed Baruch about "signage" for "introduc[ing] the [Commute shoe] and [its] features" to Bealls consumers. (Saunders Decl., Ex. 8A.) The email included Easy Spirit advertisements depicting Traveltime shoes with different upper patterns. (Saunders Decl., Ex. 8A.) The buyer informed Baruch that she wanted "to do something [similar]" for the Commute shoe and also explained which of the depicted patterns sold well at Bealls. (Saunders Decl., Ex. 8A.) According to Easy Spirit, Skechers used the information provided by the Bealls buyer to copy many of the Traveltime shoe's successful upper patterns. (Reply 56.1 ¶¶ 307–08.)

The name "Commute" was chosen by Melissa Hobbs, a senior product manager for Skechers. (Counterstatement ¶¶ 45–46.) Hobbs selected that name after she (or a member of her team) checked the names of prior Skechers shoes, as well as trademark databases for prior relevant registrations. (Counterstatement ¶ 48.) However, in September 2018—seven months after bringing the Commute shoe to market—Skechers changed the shoe's name to "Commute Time." (Counterstatement ¶ 7.) Easy Spirit claims the name change was directed by Greenberg. For example, an email dated September 20, 2018 states: "Robert ... confirmed he wants to proceed with changing the name to ‘Commute Time.’ " (Saunders Decl., Ex. 3C.) Skechers disputes the extent to which Greenberg was involved in the name change. (Reply 56.1 ¶ 329.)

Like Easy Spirit's Traveltime shoe, Skechers’ Commute and Commute Time shoes either have been or are currently sold in footwear catalogs, on the internet, and in department stores, including Macy's, Bealls, and Nordstrom Rack. (Reply 56.1 ¶ 358.) Between February 2018 and mid-June 2020, Skechers sold 444,528 pairs of Commute and Commute Time shoes. (Counterstatement ¶ 6.) A representative photo of a Commute Time shoe is depicted below.

(Compl. ¶ 23.)

DISCUSSION

I. Legal Standard

Summary judgment is proper only where "there is no genuine...