NEW BALANCE V GOLDEN GOOSE: THE LEGAL BATTLE OVER THE “DAD SHOE” DESIGN

By EDGAR OKITOI

The 2023 to 2024 Intellectual Property dispute between athletic brand ‘New Balance’ and luxury footwear label ‘Golden Goose’ centered on sneaker design and trade dress. In August 2023, New Balance dragged Golden Goose to court over Golden Goose’s new “Dad-Star” sneaker, alleging that its design infringed New Balance’s unregistered trade dress rights in the iconic New Balance 990 “dad shoe” model.

New Balance’s complaint claimed Golden Goose “willfully infringed and diluted a common law trade dress owned by New Balance” by copying key design elements that is the mesh-and-suede overlays, multi-tone gray colourways, colour-blocked midsoles, reflective accents, etc.

Golden Goose countered that New Balance has no protectable rights in the 990 design. It then moved to dismiss the suit, and argued that consumers associate the 990’s features with generic sportswear rather than a single source. The parties eventually reached a confidential settlement, dismissing the case.

1.0  BRAND AND PRODUCT BACKGROUND

1.1  NEW BALANCE

New Balance, a Massachusetts-based sportswear company, first introduced the 990 sneaker in 1982 as a high-end running shoe. The 990 series became iconic in sneaker culture and fashion, especially as a precursor to the “dad shoe” trend. 

New Balance has continuously updated the 990 line through six generations (v1 through to v6) while maintaining a characteristic aesthetic, which is the bulky midsoles, layered mesh, and suede uppers in neutral tones, and a visible New Balance “N” logo on the side.

The 990’s design (especially in gray colorways) and its heavy promotion which includes millions of dollars in advertising and an annual “Grey Day” marketing event, have made it, in the eyes of many consumers of the brand, synonymous with New Balance and the generic idea of a “dad shoe” in a way that gives it secondary meaning for all intents and purposes. The 990 is often credited as the “original dad shoe” that re-popularized chunky retro runners in the 2010s.

1.2  GOLDEN GOOSE

Golden Goose,, on the other hand, an Italian luxury fashion brand, is known for high-priced, “distressed” sneakers with stars and vintage effects. In late 2021 (or early 2022) Golden Goose launched its “Dad-Star” model, a chunky retro sneaker explicitly referencing the dad shoe trend. 

The Dad-Star comes in several colorways, but notably includes a dove gray mesh-and-suede upper with a white star appliqué on the side, an off-white or “yellowed” sole with a vintage finish, reflective elements at the heel, and double or silver eyelets. Its silhouette, thick midsole, layered panels, and muted colors closely resemble many 1980s through to 90s running shoes.

Retail price for the Dad-Star is about $600–$700, reflecting Golden Goose’s luxury positioning (much higher than New Balance’s $175–200 990 shoes) and because of this, it could therefore be argued that the class of consumers for the two brands are essentially different and there can be no likelihood of confusion because for instance, consumers of luxury brands are a bit more cautious and insist on the exact luxury brand. Golden Goose’s “Dad-Star” name itself seems to play on the idea that New Balance is known as the father of the dad shoe, while also highlighting Golden Goose’s signature star logo.

In product concept terms, New Balance and Golden Goose were tapping the same 80s/90s aesthetic simultaneously, that is, one from a sportswear heritage, the other from fashion. As The Fashion Law observed, Golden Goose’s Dad-Star “uses a name that uniquely indicates New Balance since it is ‘well-known as the “dad shoe” brand’ and fosters an association with the term.”

Consumers have indeed colloquially called the 990 the “Original Dad Shoe,” and New Balance leveraged that association heavily. Meanwhile, Golden Goose’s marketing emphasises Italian craftsmanship and retro style (including deliberate scuffs, vintage colours, etc.) but also aligns itself with sneaker culture by using volume and grey tones.

This overlap in style and marketing set the stage for New Balance’s trademark infringement and trade dress lawsuit in August 2023.

2.0  COMPLAINT AND CLAIMS

On August 18, 2023 New Balance filed a federal complaint against Golden Goose USA in the U.S. District Court for Massachusetts. The complaint accused Golden Goose of trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and trademark dilution under the Lanham Act, as well as parallel state law causes of action under Massachusetts law.

New Balance’s theory was that Golden Goose’s Dad-Star sneaker copied “several essential design elements” of the New Balance 990, thereby misappropriating New Balance’s common law trade dress.

The key allegations were the similarities included: a multi-layered upper in varying shades of gray (mesh underlay with suede overlays), a color-blocked midsole (white forefoot section and grey heel section) with a contrasting predominantly black outsole, a reflective detailing on the upper (at the heel tab and eyelets), a reinforced double eyelets on each side of the laces and an overall “clunky” chunky sole shape and silhouette.

New Balance also highlighted color and branding similarities. Both shoes use grey as a dominant color. New Balance claimed it is “famously associated with the color grey” and that Golden Goose “prominently uses shades of grey” on the Dad-Star. Even Golden Goose’s naming of its model (“Dad-Star”) was flagged because New Balance argued that Golden Goose was capitalising on New Balance’s reputation as the original “dad shoe” brand.

Together, NB claimed that Golden Goose’s design and marketing create a “perceived association” between the products, likely misleading consumers into thinking New Balance endorsed or manufactured the Dad-Star. The complaint demanded injunctive relief (e.g., recall of Dad-Star), damages, and an order forcing Golden Goose to stop using the infringing design and name.

The legal theory in the complaint was twofold.

First, New Balance alleged common law trade dress infringement which is under the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. §1125(a)) and Massachusetts law, a product’s distinctive design can function like a trademark if it identifies the source, in other words, a badge of origin of some sort, showing the origin of the product in question so to prevail, New Balance had to show that the 990’s design features were non-functional and had acquired secondary meaning (consumer recognition of the design as identifying New Balance), and that Golden Goose’s Dad-Star created a likelihood of confusion as to source of the shoes.

New Balance claimed that through decades of use, marketing, and consumer recognition, the 990’s appearance (especially in grey colorways) had indeed acquired distinctiveness. In other words, acquiring distinctiveness through use.

Second, NB asserted false designation of origin under §43(a) and dilution claims. The dilution count alleged that Golden Goose’s use of the 990-like design diluted NB’s famous trade dress by blurring or tarnishing.  (Dilution law normally applies to very famous marks or the well known marks; here, NB treated its trade dress as analogous to a famous or well-known trademark.)  New Balance did not have any registered design patents or trademarks covering the 990, instead, it relied on its “common law trade dress” rights.  (Golden Goose noted that NB never registered the 990’s look and thus must rely on these unregistered rights, which may include an action in passing off).

3.0  GOLDEN GOOSE’S RESPONSE AND MOTIONS

Golden Goose responded aggressively, as expected of a luxury brand.  In November 2023 Golden Goose filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that New Balance’s complaint should be thrown out for failure to state a claim or lack of a cause of action as you may call it. 

The crux of Golden Goose’s defence was that New Balance does not own any protectable trade dress in the 990’s design. Specifically, Golden Goose contended that the complaint did not properly identify the alleged trade dress, lacked allegations of secondary meaning, and impermissibly claimed monopoly over functional design elements which aren’t in the scope of Trademark Law.

For example, Golden Goose’s motion argued that the 990 has been redesigned six times in 40 years, so there is no single consistent design to protect. New Balance’s description of the trade dress (“upper of multi-tone gray mesh, colored midsole, black outsole” etc.) was, according to Golden Goose, overly broad and generic.

Golden Goose further insisted that many claimed features (mesh underlay, suede overlays, color block soles) are functional or ornamental rather than source identifying and trademark protection is not intended for functional aspects of a product that’s a preserve of Patent Law.

In short, Golden Goose pleaded that New Balance’s trade dress claims fail on all three statutory requirements (specificity, secondary meaning, non-functionality). Golden Goose even filed its own counterclaim seeking a declaratory judgment that New Balance has no protectable rights in the 990 design which is usually what defendants do in such cases, that is to dispute the plaintiff’s Intellectual Property rights.

New Balance opposed the dismissal motion in December 2023, asking the court to let the case proceed and also argued that it had in fact detailed its trade dress features both in narrative and with annotated images (the complaint exhibits compare several 990 versions to the Dad-Star) and far beyond the “generalized allegations” claimed by Golden Goose.

New Balance also asserted it had adequately pleaded secondary meaning because it had pointed to millions of 990 pairs sold, tens of millions in advertising on the “Original Dad Shoe” theme, extensive unsolicited media coverage, and hundreds of millions of dollars in grey shoe sales to show consumer recognition, they even included consumer social media quotes (e.g., “990, but make it Golden Goose”) to illustrate confusion.

On functionality, NB maintained that none of the claimed features were functional in combination and that the design serves only to identify the 990 as a NB shoe and not one for Golden Goose. Thus, New Balance urged the court to deny the motion to dismiss outright.

In April 2024 the parties filed a joint stipulation asking the court to dismiss the case without prejudice. New Balance and Golden Goose had resolved their dispute but specific terms were undisclosed.

While the settlement mooted any final ruling on the merits, the filings shed some light on how courts might analyse such a case, especially the likelihood of confusion analysis that is central to trademark infringement.

4.0  TRADE DRESS AND LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

Under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. §1125(a), it is unlawful to use any designation that is “likely to cause confusion” about the origin of goods. Trade dress (the look or design of a product) is treated like a trademark, and if a product design serves as a source identifier, its unauthorised imitation can infringe and or be a ground for an infringement claim. But product designs (unlike word marks or logos) are not inherently distinctive. 

As the U.S. Supreme Court held in Wal-Mart Stores v. Samara Brothers, unregistered product designs are not protectable trade dress absent of any secondary meaning i.e., they must have acquired a public association with the producer through extensive use that is essentially acquiring distinctiveness through use. New Balance did not register the 990 design, so it needed to prove that consumers identify the 990’s appearance with New Balance.

Trade dress is also limited by functionality because a feature is not protectable if it is functional in any significant respect ideally because that’s a preserve of Patent Law and not Trademarks. 

In footwear, many elements (suede overlays for durability, midsole cushioning shape, etc.) have functional or aesthetic purposes, so careful analysis is required whenever dealing with functionality issues.

When these threshold requirements are met, a plaintiff must still prove a likelihood of confusion between the marks/trade dresses. Courts apply a multi-factor test (often based on the Second Circuit’s Polaroid factors) to gauge confusion likelihood.

These key considerations include, the strength/distinctiveness of the plaintiff’s trade dress, the similarity of the two designs in appearance and concept, the proximity of the products (here, both are sneakers), the evidence of actual consumer confusion, the defendant’s intent, the sophistication of buyers and also marketing channels and classes of consumers.

However, no single factor is dispositive because the courts weigh the totality of circumstances to assess a plausible likelihood of confusion.

For example, courts compare features side by side and also consider overall commercial impression and nn this case, New Balance’s arguments emphasized similarities (chunky gray-stitched uppers, color-blocked soles, use of grey) to show substantial overlap, while Golden Goose noted differences (the prominent star logo, handcrafted finish, luxury pricing) and consumer sophistication.

Actual confusion is particularly probative. New Balance cited social media posts by sneaker enthusiasts assuming a connection. Consumer surveys are not required but can help establish secondary meaning or confusion.  Ultimately though, the court would consider whether an ordinary purchaser is likely to think the Dad-Star is affiliated with or endorsed by New Balance, of course taking into consideration the sophistication of the consumer and or target market of the product.

To assess likelihood of confusion, one must scrutinize the sneaker designs in depth or at least down to the last inch.

The New Balance 990 and the Golden Goose Dad-Star share a general silhouette that is the thick, multi-layered midsoles and a complex upper with panels of mesh, suede, and reflective material also both prominently use greyish tones and white or off-white midsoles.  Many elements listed by NB overlap with Dad-Star’s features. 

For instance, the 990 trade dress asserted by New Balance includes an upper composed primarily of multiple tones of a single color (usually grey), a mesh underlay with suede overlay creating mesh windows in forefoot and midfoot, overlay bars in lateral and medial forefoot, a midsole with a white forefoot and differently colored rear portion, a contrasting outsole, reflective accents and reinforced eyelets.

Golden Goose’s Dad-Star literally has a dove gray, mesh and suede upper and silver eyelets, a white/cream midsole, a black outsole, reflective heel fabric, and double eyelets. The shapes and proportions of the sole units are also quite similar because both have a chunky, layered midsole and a rugged treaded outsole.

At first glance, to a casual consumer the two sneakers may appear very much in the same family of “retro bulky grey running shoes.”  New Balance’s complaint intentionally placed images of six NB 990 variants next to Golden Goose’s Dad-Star to show the resemblance. 

Golden Goose’s internal marketing does describe the Dad-Star as having a “timeless style” with “grey mesh and suede” uppers, a white star, reflective heel inserts and “yellowed” sole which language strongly echoes New Balance’s own rhetoric about the 990.

However, there are also countervailing differences and the most obvious is the branding, in that, New Balance shoes have the large “N” logo on the side panel, whereas Golden Goose has a five-pointed star.,

New Balance’s 990s sometimes feature mesh windows on the midfoot, the Dad-Star’s construction is not identical in shape. Golden Goose often sells in flamboyant color versions that the 990 never does. Golden Goose sneakers are sold in high end boutiques and luxury channels and at triple the price, whereas New Balance 990s are sold in sporting goods and mainstream retail at mid prices. 

These differences, that is, the brand logos, finish, distribution, price, point of sale, may reduce confusion among many consumers. For example, a typical New Balance purchaser might consider Golden Goose a luxury streetwear.

Nevertheless, New Balance points out that ordinary consumers are likely to be confused and erroneously believe that New Balance has an affiliation, connection, or association with the Golden Goose shoe and that the likelihood of confusion test does not demand identity, only confusion in the mind of some reasonable customers.

In sneaker culture however, silhouette and style cues can override brand differences. If the court had to decide, it would weigh how convincing New Balance’s similarity argument is against Golden Goose’s dissimilarities and target market distinctions.

5.0  LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION ANALYSIS

The strength of the New Balance’s trade dress. 

A mark’s strength is measured by its distinctiveness and ability to act inherently as a badge or indicator of origin. New Balance claims its 990 design is “distinctive” through secondary meaning, arguing that it acquired its distinctiveness through use, noting that it sold millions of 990s over 40 years and spent many millions promoting them.

It cited the Original Dad Shoe campaign and Grey Day events built a strong brand story. On the flip side, Golden Goose’s defence is that consumers view the 990 style as generic performance footwear, not as a brand signifier and further highlighted that New Balance never trademarked the design and thus must show acquired distinctiveness.  Without a survey or direct evidence of consumers specifically looking for a 990 design as an NB product, New Balance’s strength is really debatable. 

The similarity of designs. Many design elements overlap, as noted, because both shoes have grey mesh and suede, thick midsole, and reflective accents. 

The overall get up is quite similar in concept, however, they are not entirely identical because of many aspects, GG’s star logo and styled wear patterns versus NB’s “N” logo, GG’s sole has a deliberately aged look versus NB’s crisp sole. But still to lay consumers the get up could be highly similar. 

Courts will look at trade dress in its totality, but also consider whether the differences are material to perception because, ideally, it is how the consumer perceives the products that will make it confusing. If an average sneaker shopper notices the big star and luxury price, maybe he or she will not be confused; however if they see only the grey shoe shape and think “this looks like an NB 990, I wonder if it is?” confusion is possible.

The similarity of the goods and the channels through which they are sold. 

Both are casual sneakers, so the goods are closely related in that aspect. New Balance argued it and Golden Goose compete in the “dad shoe” niche that is essentially the same market. 

Golden Goose countered that it sells at upscale boutiques and its customers are luxury fashion buyers, whereas New Balance sells on Amazon, retailer floors, and appeals to athletes essentially arguing that they occupy different market tiers.

In trademark law, same trade channels or same market favour confusion, and here there is some channel overlap in that some sneaker boutiques sell both brand types, and online marketplaces sell both.  But the premium market position versus the mass market positioning could reduce such a confusion.

The Intent of Golden Goose. 

Courts consider whether the defendant intentionally copied or the imitation was in fact intended. New Balance painted Golden Goose as a serial copyist of other brands because Golden Goose had earlier been sued by Longchamp.

The Dad-Star’s name and grey palette could be seen as intentionally evoking NB’s “dad shoe” image which it had heavily marketed. Golden Goose is savvy and could plausibly have known of the 990 and chose a similar style. 

However, Golden Goose argued it created the Dad-Star independently as part of a retro style trend, and any copying, if any was incidental. The complaint did not allege direct access to NB designs beyond general market exposure. Still, if Golden Goose did copy recognizable features deliberately, that favours NB.

Evidence of actual confusion. 

This factor is powerful if present and perhaps the most important one. New Balance supplied social media posts showing customers confused.

Though not formal survey evidence, such anecdotal confusion can weigh heavily and tilt the case. Courts appreciate survey data, but in its absence, documented instances of consumer comments or buyer testimony can help.

The Purchaser care.

The sophistication and care of buyers can lessen the likelihood of confusion. Dad-Star buyers, ordinarily spending $600+ on fashion sneakers might be discerning and notice Golden Goose branding, thus less likely to mistake them for a New Balance product. Conversely, some New Balance customers are also sneaker aficionados who pay attention to design details.  This factor essentially cuts both ways.

Bridging the Intellectual Property gap.

Would consumers reasonably think New Balance might one day make a luxury distressed shoe, or Golden Goose might enter mass market athletic shoes?  This factor is not heavily emphasised by New Balance. The brands have not announced such expansion, so this factor likely is neutral or weak.

Summarily, the factors cut both ways for example, the design similarity, combined with anecdotal confusion, supports New Balance. The differences in branding and channels, plus the requirement of secondary meaning, support Golden Goose.

However, without a court ruling, one can only speculate which side would prevail. Some experts noted that the thin line between inspiration and infringement in fashion design means courts tread carefully.

As one commentary observed,

“When courts are presented with multi-factor analysis, an outcome usually comes down to the persuasiveness of evidence and how the judge weighs which factors are most important”.

6.0  TRADE DRESS AND SECONDARY MEANING

A core dispute was whether New Balance’s claimed trade dress was protectable at all. Trade dress law requires non-functionality and distinctiveness. Golden Goose pointed out that New Balance itself described the 990 through multiple versions, essentially conceding the design evolved. They also argued it was legally impermissible for NB to claim rights in features that are usually present rather than fixed, or to try to monopolize broad design categories. Therefore, the complaint’s overbroad phrasing gave Golden Goose ammunition on this point.

On secondary meaning, New Balance stressed that it had built an unmistakable association between the 990 style and its brand.  The Wiggin & Dana report on sneaker IP explains that trade dress acquires protection if it has developed a secondary meaning, which occurs when, ‘in the minds of the public, the primary significance of a mark is to identify the source of the product.

New Balance’s evidence of heavy promotion and vast sales aimed to establish exactly this, that consumers viewed grey suede 990 type shoes and think New Balance.

However, Golden Goose countered that NB’s allegations were generalized and not tied to specific features, and NB never conducted surveys to prove consumer recognition. Golden Goose even cited prior cases noting that without surveys, plaintiffs must heavily rely on other factors and that a lack of a consumer survey is not per se fatal but other evidence must compensate for that lack in evidence.

Functionality was another battleground for the two. Golden Goose claimed many of the 990’s elements are functional sneaker design features. NB’s brief took the position that even if individual aspects could serve practical purposes, the combination functions as a source identifier.

Wiggin’s analysis confirms that plaintiffs need only show that the claimed dress is non-functional. Golden Goose pointed to existing utility patents and the fact that many shoe parts are engineered to argue obvious functionality. New Balance maintained it had pleaded non-functionality and that Golden Goose misread the facts as hinting at function rather than aesthetic.

If this case had gone to trial, one would expect the court to instruct the jury that New Balance must prove that each feature is not functional, the overall combination is distinctive, and that Golden Goose’s use is likely to confuse. Indeed, as the Supreme Court held in Wal-Mart v. Samara, unregistered design trade dress is only protectable upon proof of secondary meaning.

7.0  COURT HEARING AND SETTLEMENT

Litigation ended quickly with a settlement in early April 2024. The settlement suggests that both sides preferred to avoid the uncertainty of a trial. It also reflects a broader industry reality, that is the costly and time-consuming IP litigation.

Because the case did not produce an appellate opinion, we lack a judicial decision explicitly applying the law. Nevertheless, the filings and commentary amount to expert legal analysis. Trademark lawyers commenting on the case emphasized how fashion disputes hinge on nuanced factors.

Wiggin’s report points out that color or style features can be protected if strongly tied to a brand which exactly was New Balance’s argument for its grey association. The Fashion Law noted that Golden Goose’s motion raised familiar defences that have succeeded in other fashion cases.

On the other hand, commentators agreed that actual confusion and intent to copy were powerful points for New Balance. In sum, legal experts saw this dispute as testing the boundaries of trade dress law in the context of athletic fashions.

8.0  MARKETING AND BUSINESS IMPLICATIONS

Beyond the legal niceties, this dispute highlights important business issues in the sneaker and luxury sectors. For brands like New Balance, distinctive design is a valuable corporate asset.

The lawsuit signals to competitors that NB will aggressively protect its heritage style. Golden Goose, on the other hand, appears to push the envelope by appropriating sportswear aesthetics for the luxury market, a trend seen across fashion. Golden Goose has been involved in other IP conflicts so it seems willing to litigate design boundaries.

From a consumer perspective, the case underscores how streetwear and sport cultures collide. Sneaker heads and fashionistas often share channels, celebrities wear Golden Goose sneakers at red carpet events, and athletic brands like Nike collaborate with high fashion designers. In that environment, the line between inspiration and infringement blurs. Trademark disputes in fashion are “all too familiar”, and even mid-size brands must be vigilant about IP.

For retailers and licensees, the dispute is a cautionary tale. Carrying an accused infringing product could expose them to liability. Indeed, Intellectual Property Law allows injunctions against distributors and sellers of infringing goods. Although NB’s complaint focused on Golden Goose itself, New Balance explicitly sought recall of Golden Goose products. The settlement likely avoids such remedies, but it sends a message that vendors should be aware of IP risks when cross selling athletic and luxury lines.

For the fashion industry at large, the case illustrates the growing importance of trade dress as intellectual property. Traditional design patents and copyrights cover only certain elements.  As Wiggin notes, trademark law is the touchstone for many such disputes.

Fashion companies are increasingly adopting comprehensive IP strategies. However, the Samara rule reminds designers that product looks are hard to monopolize unless consumers unmistakably link them to one maker. The New Balance–Golden Goose saga may spur other brands to audit their design protection or challenge suspiciously similar products on the market.

The New Balance v Golden Goose case centered on whether Golden Goose’s Dad-Star sneaker infringed New Balance’s common law trade dress in the 990 design. It raised deep trademark law issues about product design protection and consumer confusion.

New Balance argued that the dad shoe trend did not give Golden Goose license to copy NB’s look, while Golden Goose argued that the 990 design is generic and functional sneaker design.  The parties never litigated the dispute to a final ruling because they settled but the detailed filings illuminate how courts would apply the likelihood of confusion factors and trade dress doctrine to sneaker designs.

From a legal standpoint, critical questions include, Did New Balance’s trade dress have acquired distinctiveness? Are the similarities in grey mesh panels and sole shape sufficient to confuse consumers? The available commentary suggests this was a close call.  The factors of actual confusion and bad faith copied by Golden Goose weighed in New Balance’s favor, but Golden Goose’s differences and domain argument weighed against it. Had the case continued, resolution would likely hinge on the jury’s view of trade dress protectability.

In the business context, the dispute underscores that even high-fashion brands can face infringement allegations from sportswear rivals when designs converge. It also demonstrates the cost to brands of failing to register distinctive designs NB had no design patent or trademark on the 990.  For industry players, the lesson is that iconic designs should be vigilantly protected, if possible, but success in court is never guaranteed.

The pdf version is available below;

NEW BALANCE V GOLDEN GOOSE_THE LEGAL BATTLE OVER THE “DAD SHOE” DESIGN_EDGAR OKITOI.pdf

Download PDF • 384KB