Has there ever been a shoe more divisive than Crocs? Podiatrists advise they only be used in moderation, comedians deride them as “Swiss cheese shoes,” and schools ban them on tripping hazard grounds. (Though the kids are helping schools out this year by declaring that Crocs are OUT, on sartorial grounds.) Yet these porous clown shoes have one crucial element buoying along their popularity: they’re so dang comfy! I admit that I was aghast when they first came on the scene (again, on sartorial grounds). The older I get, though, the more I value comfortable footwear. But speaking of value, it is rather alarming the prices these kicks can get up to for plastic shoes. They’re ripe for cheaper imitations, of which there are many out there. For instance: discount chain Five Below has been selling knockoffs at a fraction of the cost. Their kids Juniors Charm Clog retail for just $7, as opposed to the Crocs’ counterpart that go for $40 and don’t include Jibbitz/charms. So of course Crocs Corporate is suing Five Below for trademark infringement and lost income.
Crocs is suing Five Below over a $7 pair of clogs, alleging the discount retailer copied elements of its footwear and infringed patent covering the charms used to decorate the shoes.
Crocs and its subsidiary, Jibbitz, filed the lawsuit Sept. 18 in U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, where Crocs is based. The companies accuse Five Below of infringing trademarks and patents through its Juniors Charm Clog and related accessories, according to court documents.
At the center of the case are Five Below’s clogs, which Crocs says copy distinctive elements of its Classic Clog. The company alleges the shoes feature similarities including the arrangement of holes, trapezoid-shaped openings and a textured band. Crocs says those similarities could lead consumers to believe the Five Below shoes are affiliated with Crocs.
The lawsuit also takes aim at the charms sold with Five Below’s clogs. Jibbitz says the retailer’s charms infringe three patents covering systems for attaching decorative charms to footwear and other wearable products. Crocs also says Five Below’s Novelty Shoe Purse copies elements of the Classic Clog and a Crocs bag charm.
Crocs says it sent Five Below a demand letter March 4 detailing its intellectual property concerns. According to the lawsuit, Five Below acknowledged receiving the letter but continued selling the disputed products.
The legal complaint says Five Below was attempting to benefit from Crocs’ investment in its brand by selling similar-looking footwear at a lower price.
Five Below lists its Juniors Charm Clog for $7, according to its website, which currently shows all the variations out of stock online. Crocs’ Kids Classic Clog sells for $39.99, according to its website, while the company’s adult clogs generally cost between $50 and $65.
Crocs and Jibbitz are asking for a jury trial and unspecified damages, including alleged lost profits. They also want a permanent injunction preventing Five Below from selling products that infringe their intellectual property.
The companies are seeking attorneys’ fees and the destruction of inventory they say infringes their rights, according to the lawsuit.
I’m of two minds on this (and that’s super funny if you click the link). On the one foot, I like saving money and am not mustering up much sympathy for a multi-billion-dollar company that claims to sell 150 million pairs of (overpriced) shoes a year. On the other foot… Five Below’s knockoffs absolutely look just like Crocs, there’s no denying it! I was thinking back to a different recent trademark lawsuit — Buc-ee’s gas stations suing a little guy Ohio mini mart over dueling beaver logos — and in that case the infringement allegation is harder to buy. There’s no confusing Beaver’s Mini Mart with a Buc-ee’s, nor is the mini mart’s beaver logo a rip off of Buc-ee’s ball-capped logo critter (that reasonably looks more like a chipmunk than a beaver). But in Crocs vs. Five Below, I dare say only the most discerning of clog connoisseurs could distinguish between the two brands when presented with a blind shoe test. And then not only to copy the shoe, but the Jibbitz too?? I smell a quick settlement. And stinky feet.
Photos are from Crocs and Five Below websites
I bought cheapo Croc offs many years ago, and they’ve been my faves for taking out the trash or to use at the public pool, etc. I bought actual cute Crocs on sale this summer and they are fully a way better and sturdier shoe. I don’t want to be pro huge corporation but the faux jibbitz are maybe a step too far and makes the suit understandable?
When I worked in fashion production years ago copying was rampant (and still is). Designers would literally give us a garment, usually from a higher end competitor and say “copy this” and would just make a minor adjustment or two. At the time it was generally understood that a pattern or a style couldn’t be copyrighted but a trademark or something very technical could which is why I think they’re placing so much emphasis on the charms here.
Also while a pattern was not able to be copyrighted a mould could, but you can clearly see these shoes are not the same mould. And most likely not the same comfort or quality
Several years ago the Danish company Rains won a landmark lawsuit against Zara for them totally copying their designs and put a lot of emphasis on the zipper placement and technique. That case might be important precedence to the Crocs case now.
Honestly, it should be illegal to charge $50 for doofy looking plastic shoes…comfortable as they may be. Five Below for the win! Although they may need to change their name to 10 below now.