Louis Vuitton and Pharrell Williams misstep in POCKET SOCKS infringement case

Louis Vuitton and Pharrell Williams may have misstepped – almost literally. The company and its men’s creative director are accused of infringing the registered US trademark POCKET SOCKS in connection with (you guessed it) socks with pockets.

The allegations in the complaint filed June 20 by Pocket Socks, Inc. in the US District Court for the Southern District of California (case no. 24-cv-01076), accuse Louis Vuitton (both the French parent and its North American affiliate) and Williams of trademark and trade dress infringement under US federal law (the Lanham Act), as well as unfair competition under California state law.

Under the name POCKET SOCKS, the plaintiff sells socks with a zippered pocket for around $20 a pair. The product is available online via at least the website pocketsocks.com. 

Pocket Socks, Inc. holds three extant US trademark registrations for the name POCKET SOCKS per se. These include Registration No. 7429144, issued June 25, 2024, and covering hosiery and socks; Registration No. 4414045, issued in 2013 and covering hosiery; and Registration No. 4200363, issued in 2012 and covering hosiery. The last of these registrations was issued on the Supplemental Register, reflecting the US Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) conclusion that POCKET SOCKS is “merely descriptive.” The first two of these registrations were issued on the Principal Register under Section 2(f) of the Lanham Act, reflecting Pocket Socks, Inc.’s claim that POCKET SOCKS, though merely descriptive, acquired trademark significance because of “substantially exclusive and continuous use” for at least five years prior to filing the applications resulting in each registration.

In support of the trademark infringement claim, Pocket Socks, Inc. references only Registrations No. 4200363 and No. 4414045. Registration No. 7429144 was issued after the lawsuit against Louis Vuitton and Williams was filed (perhaps it will be added in an amended complaint?) Both registrations are for the mark without regard to style (“standard characters”), though, the complaint bizarrely asserts that defendants are using POCKET SOCKS “in the same font and size as in Pocket Socks’ US Trademark Registration No. 4,414,045.”

In support of the trade dress claim, Pocket Socks, Inc. asserts a further US Registration, No. 6066095, which was issued on the Supplemental Register and shows the following as the trademark:

Plaintiff’s complaint articulates no other alleged trade dress, and the significance of the registration is minimal at best. The “Supplemental” nature of the registrations reflects that the product configuration trade dress is not inherently distinctive (see the Supreme Court’s seminal decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Bros., 529 U.S. 205 (2000)) and remains subject to the plaintiff’s proof of acquired distinctiveness.

Curiously, the complaint also references – and includes as an exhibit – a US design patent, No. D965284, though no claim of patent infringement is asserted. Perhaps an amendment of the complaint will be made in an effort to expand the case, but, even a cursory comparison of the patented design and the accused Vuitton product reveals a number of visual distinctions that may make such a claim problematic. 

The accused product, in Louis Vuitton style, sells for over $500 a pair. An image from the Vuitton website is reproduced below. The same product is exemplified in the complaint.

At first blush, the trade dress claim looks to be D.O.A. There’s clearly no similarity between the alleged Pocket Socks’ trade dress and the accused Vuitton product.

The case against Williams also looks problematic on its face. There is no indication that Williams is separately selling the accused product. No allegation is made of particular conduct by Williams that would support a finding of contributory infringement, nor is there even any count for contributory infringement on Williams’ part.

More obvious facial problems and peculiarities aside, this case will certainly turn whether there is a likelihood of consumer confusion between Louis Vuitton-branded socks selling at $500+ a pair versus socks sold for $20. It may also turn on whether Louis Vuitton’s use of ‘pocket socks’ is a ‘nominative fair use’ for purposes only of describing the product. Since the US registration for POCKET SOCKS is incontestable, Louis Vuitton will be unable to challenge that the mark has acquired distinctiveness. Nevertheless, it can’t be doubted that POCKET SOCKS tells you exactly what the goods are with the greatest economy of language. On the other hand, the Louis Vuitton website capitalizes the first letter in each word of Pocket Socks and offers no other

descriptive language, as shown in the partial screenshot below.

At this point, it’s still very early days in the course of this lawsuit. As of the date of writing this article, no return of service has been filed (meaning none of the defendants has apparently been served with a copy of the complaint and associated summons). Considering the details of the case as set out in the complaint, it seems evident that the dispute is getting outsized attention for the notoriety of the defendants. The case doesn’t offer any novel theory or address a controversial legal issue. At best, it may end up providing additional guidance on what uses of descriptive but protected terms are/are not ‘fair.’ But even that remains to be seen.

← Back to News