Vision Street Wear has accused New Balance of plagiarism
The dispute concerns the brand's collaboration with Jaden Smith
November 2nd, 2020
The collaboration between New Balance and Jaden Smith, which resulted in the Vision Racer sneaker released this summer, has been accused of trademark infringement by the Vision Street Wear brand and the ABG Collective group, which also owns Brooks Brothers and Juicy Couture. According to the indictment, New Balance appropriated the trademark "Vision", registered by ABG in 2014, for the marketing of the sneaker. According to the indictment, New Balance «manufactured, advertised, marketed, distributed, offered for sale, and sold … footwear products bearing identical and confusingly similar imitations of the VISION trademarks». With the aggravation that the products of the two brands are often sold through the same channels – thus making them «misleading» according to the lawsuit filed by the ABG Collective that goes so far as to accuse New Balance of actual counterfeiting. That's why ABG Collective is seeking two million dollars in damages.
ABG Collective's accusation, although legally valid, is a pretext. New Balance remains a somewhat clumsy faux pas, yes, but the indictment goes so far as to claim that the Boston brand intentionally plagiarized Vision Street Wear trademarks to deceive consumers. But it is precisely this intentionality that is the problem. New Balance x Jaden Smith's Vision Racer certainly doesn't need to misled Vision Street Wear customers to gain popularity, given the fame surrounding both the Boston brand and Smith himself, or to counterfeit anything. At most we can talk about image damage suffered by Vision Street Wear, that was founded in 1976, whose word-trademark the collaboration has made use of.
New Balance's use of the word, however, puts the brand on the wrong side – and that's probably what the prosecution will want to use to get as much compensation as possible. If the trademark of the word "vision" had been registered for years, anyone who approved the design and production of the shoe should have known sooner. The most likely outcome is a plea bargain, which will prevent the cause from prolonging more than it should and silence the issue.