Campaign images from Ugg’s Fall/Winter 2024 collection with the Classic Ultra Mini. Image: Ugg / Deckers Group.

A federal judge has awarded the luxury label Quince a partial victory in the ongoing legal dispute with Deckers Outdoor Corporation, the parent company of Ugg boots. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled that two of the Ugg trade dress claims claimed by Deckers – the Classic Ultra Mini and the Tasman – are generic and therefore ineligible for trademark protection. The court dismissed Deckers’ corresponding claims of trade dress infringement and unfair competition.

The case, filed in 2023, asked whether Quince’s “Australian Shearing” shoes infringed Deckers’ Ugg designs and a design patent. Deckers accused Quince of copying the appearance of several Ugg models. Quince, however, argued that these designs were long-established, industry-wide models that could not be monopolized.

In its October 2025 decision, the court partially agreed with Quince. It found that both the Ugg Classic Ultra Mini and Tasman designs were “so common across the industry” that they could not serve as distinctive features for a single brand. The judge pointed to evidence showing that more than a dozen competitors offer similar products. The court concluded that Deckers had failed to demonstrate that its designs were distinctive.

The court also denied Deckers’ motion for summary judgment in its entirety and barred the company from seeking damages for lost profits related to its remaining patent lawsuit. However, Deckers’ design infringement lawsuit, U.S. Patent No. D927,161, and the Bailey Button Boot trade dress lawsuit remain pending. Parts of the legal dispute are therefore still unresolved.

The ruling could have far-reaching implications for the fashion and footwear industries, where the line between “timeless” and “brandable” design is often blurred. The decision reaffirms that widely used product features cannot be monopolized by trademark law. This could influence how brands assert and defend intellectual property claims in design disputes in the future.

This article was created using digital tools translated.

FashionUnited uses artificial intelligence to speed up the translation of articles and improve the end result. They help us to make FashionUnited’s international reporting quickly and comprehensively accessible to a German-speaking readership. Articles translated using AI-based tools are proofread and carefully edited by our editors before they are published. If you have any questions or comments, please email [email protected]

ttn-12