Can any yellow stitching on a shoe considered trademark infringement?

An ruling of the Brussels Court of Appeal dated of 30 September 2025 sheds an illuminating light on the protection of iconic fashion features, such as the famous yellow stitching and sole pattern of Dr. Martens boots. The ruling confirms that recognizable elements that are perceived as trademarks through prolonged and intensive use enjoy robust legal protection, but also sets clear limits on how far that protection extends, particularly when it comes to color variations.

The facts: iconic boots versus look-alikes

The case revolved around Airwair International Limited, the manufacturer of the world-famous Dr. Martens shoes , and Retail Distribution Concepts BV (Redisco), the operator of the Belgian shoe chains Mano and Pronti. Airwair accused Redisco of selling boots that infringed on several of its registered trademarks.

The dispute centered on four specific brands of Airwair:

1. The yellow stitching mark: A position mark for the yellow stitching in the border between the upper leather and the sole.
2. The 'yellow stitching on a black welt' trademark: A more specific position mark for the same feature.
3. The 'DMS sole pattern' trademark: A shape mark for the unique pattern of the shoe sole.
4. The 'resistance rectangle' mark: A pictorial mark on the sole indicating resistance to oil, grease, and other substances.

Redisco sold in its stores several models of boots from suppliers Apex Footwear and Rolling Business, which Airwair said were too similar to the original Dr. Martens, including variants with orange and white stitching and a similar sole pattern.

Appeal court decision

The Brussels Court of Appeal ruled largely in favor of Airwair, but not across the board. The court's decision can be summarized as follows:

• The sole pattern (Benelux trademark 0588726): The court ruled that Dr. Martens' sole pattern does have sufficient distinctive character. It differs significantly from what is common in the industry and allows consumers to recognize the shoes as coming from a specific manufacturer. Redisco's counterclaim to declare this trademark invalid was therefore rejected. The shoes sold by Redisco with a very similar sole pattern thereby infringed Airwair's trademark.
• The yellow stitching (Benelux trademark 0588724): The court noted that a stitching between sole and upper leather is in itself a functional and common element, particularly due to the well-known "Goodyear-welt" production method. The mark therefore did not originally have any intrinsic distinctive character. However, through decades of intensive use, marketing and general perception in the press and among the public, the yellow stitching has acquired distinctiveness through familiarising. It has become an iconic feature that consumers directly link to Dr. Martens.
• The infringement by orange and white stitching: Here the court made a distinction:
  • Orange stitching: The court found that there was average visual similarity between the orange stitching on the Redisco boots and Airwair's yellow stitching mark. Given the high distinctiveness of the mark and the identical products (boots), there was a real likelihood of consumer confusion. Thus, this use was considered a trademark infringement.
  • White stitching: For the shoes with white stitching, the court ruled otherwise. The visual difference between white and yellow is too great to speak of similarity. The court stated that "Airwair's claim that white stitching also belongs 'to the yellow color spectrum' is not serious." Since there was no similarity, there could also be no likelihood of confusion, and thus there was no trademark infringement.

Legal analysis and interpretation

This ruling demonstrates the complexity of trademark law . The court's decision perfectly illustrates how different legal principles (distinctiveness, incorporation, likelihood of confusion) intersect, but some points are still open to criticism.

1. The power of familiarising

The court's analysis on the yellow stitching and sole pattern is legally classic reasoning. Technical or functional elements (such as a stitching or sole pattern) are basically "free" and can hardly be monopolized as a trademark.

However, Airwair successfully proves here that these elements have been given a "second life" through decades of intense and consistent use. The public recognizes the shoe by its stitching and sole pattern. With this, it is no longer merely a functional component, but an indication of origin (a brand). This is called "distinctiveness through familiarising".

2. The 'variable' consumer: an inconsistent analysis?

The most criticizable points of the judgment relate to the assessment of likelihood of confusion. There is an inconsistency in how the court assesses the average consumer:

• At the sole pattern: The court finds that the consumer has a low level of attention. The differences between the original pattern and the look-alike are too insignificant and consumers will not notice them, leading to confusion.
• At the white stitching: Here the court seems to suddenly attribute a very high level of attention to that same consumer. The consumer does now notice differences in thread thickness and stitch size.

It is difficult to legally justify how the same consumer is so inattentive at one moment (at the sole) and so detail-oriented at the next (at the stitching).

3. The limits of color protection

The inconsistency continues in the analysis of the colors. The court rules:

• Orange stitching: Is visually close enough to yellow to cause confusion. This is an infringment.
• White stitching: Is visually too different from yellow. This is not an infringment.

If the yellow stitching is so iconic and familiarised, then protection should correctly extend to any variant that evokes an association with the public. If orange can evoke that association, why not white? The hard line the court now draws (orange = yes, white = no) feels somewhat arbitrary. If the trademark protects only the yellow stitching, in theory the protection should be limited to shades of yellow, not orange.

4. The descriptive words on the sole

Questions can also be raised about the 'resistance rectangle' mark. The court found infringement because Redisco used the words 'OIL FAT ACID PETROL ALKALI RESISTANT' in the same layout. Here, however, the court could have looked more closely at whether the average Benelux consumer sees these English terms as a trademark, and not merely as a descriptive listing of properties. If those words are merely descriptive, they have very low distinctiveness, and merely copying the layout may not be sufficient to conclude a real likelihood of confusion.

What this specifically means

• For trademark owners: This ruling underscores the importance of consistently using and promoting your trademark features. Even functional or decorative elements can become valuable, enforceable trademark rights if you can demonstrate that the public recognizes them as your "signature. Document your marketing efforts, sales figures and media coverage carefully; this evidence is important to demonstrate distinctiveness through incorporation.
• For retailers and manufacturers: Be careful about taking "inspiration" from well-known brands. Copying a combination of distinctive elements (such as a specific silhouette, a sole pattern AND a colored stitching) increases the risk of a successful infringement claim. This ruling makes it clear that even a minor change in color (from yellow to orange) is not enough to escape infringement. However, a more distinctly different color (such as white) can significantly reduce the risk. A thorough analysis of competitors' trademarks is essential before launching a new product.

FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions)

Is every yellow stitching on a shoe now trademark infringement?
Not necessarily. The protection is specific to the use of a yellow stitching in the border between the upper leather and the sole of a shoe, in a way that may cause public confusion with the Dr. Martens trademark. Context is everything: the combination with other design elements and the overall impression of the shoe play a major role.

What is the difference between a shape mark and a position mark?
A shape mark protects the three-dimensional shape of a product itself, such as the unique sole pattern of the Dr. Martens shoe. A position mark protects a specific mark (such as a color, logo or pattern) applied to the product in a well-defined and constant location, such as the yellow stitching on the edge of the sole.

Why was the orange stitching seen as infringement and the white not?
The court ruled that the color orange was visually close enough to yellow to cause confusion among the average consumer as to the origin of the shoe. White, on the other hand, was considered a visually distinctly different color, so there was no similarity and therefore no risk of confusion.

Conclusion

This ruling shows the power, but also the limits of trademark protection in the fashion world. Iconic features that have become established through years of investment and use enjoy robust protection in Belgium. At the same time, the judge guards the balance and prevents a brand from gaining too broad a monopoly on general design elements such as contrasting stitching in general.