What’s inside the Wavy Baby? Why Vans sued MSCHF 

Get some premium American made leather belts and wallets here - Belts: bit.ly/3yWdqmk Wallets: bit.ly/3XHs6CL

The MSCHF shoe was a play off the Vans Old Skool, not the Skate Low. The Skate Lo is a much newer silhouette if I am not mistaken.

I will never not be impressed with how sharp the parting knife is.

But unfair to the Vans when you're comparing them to the wrong vans silhouette. Those are based on the Old Skool/Style 36

I thought these were a Vans shoe when I had first seen them. This video is the only reason I now know that they weren't.

I think the problem isn't that anyone would confuse these with skate shoes it's that the design and marketing is something a consumer may mistake as a Vans product. As for the defense that this is art so they can make whatever they want that goes out the window when you start selling them.

You should've grabbed the Vans Old Skool low to make this comparison.

The main point is it is a trademark dispute. Copyright claims can be selectively enforced by a rights holder but a trademark needs to be enforced at all times. If a trademark isn't enforced the rights holder could lose it and have it deemed generic.

The reasons these brands go after things like MSCHF because they need to protect their intellectual property. If they don't sue, other brands may point to this as a reasons for them to actually copy vans design and create knockoffs. But that's just my opinion

this is a trademark issue...i have to agree with vans on this one just like i agree with nike going after many companies that copy their shoes but change the logo just a bit.

As someone who loathes trainers and has no idea why some become so famous, I totally thought it was Vans who made the wavy baby as they [to my un 'trained' ] eyes look totally the same only distorted. It takes several seconds and close scrutiny to see that they are made by a totally different company. To me that is appropriation and the abuse of the Vans 'fame' to propel their comedy shoe on someone else's back. They could have made them completely different. But what do I know, I wear a 16 year old pair of Kappa trainers as houseshoes and am not ashamed. Meh.

Favourite mschf product, by far. Not only because of the product itself but the fact that mschf looked at a vans sneaker and said, "Screw it, we gonna use this to make something cool"

MSCHF saying that they are "sampling" the Vans style is fair enough, things like that are done in art. But if you look at music, if one artist samples another artists song, they have to pay to do that. That didn't seem to happen here, so MSCHF can profit from using something created by another party without paying them their due.

Mischief wanted the suite like they do on all their other parodies. Brings them attention and sales. They specifically designed the shoe to push a company like vans into protecting their IPs. The only way I can side with vans is if I think kids look at this shoe without understanding, see the price and the rapper and think it’s the “ultimate” vans. When in reality it’s nearly unwearable. Not that it’s got to do with anything but the shoe is clearly a wavy version of the old school, not the skate low. The skate low came later as skate shoes needed more and more protection. It’s one of the oldest vans still in production along with their authentics

Gotta agree with Vans on this one. Complete ripoff. The entire basis of design of this shoe comes down to it being based on a classic designed by someone else, without the original Vans design these shoes are irrelevant. He should have done it as a collaboration with Vans or come up with his own unique design not based on their footwear which would have been truly original as an artist.

To maintain trademarks, brands are required protect them. That's why companies like Disney and Nintendo will jump on anyone who uses their IP without permission, no matter how big or small.

I don't agree here. When I saw them first time at some store on the internet, I thought it was Vans special release or collab with other company. It took me a few minutes to find what MSCHF is (never heard of them before since I'm not interested in art fashion) and my second thought was that MSCHF released it under Vans' approval or license and I was wrong again only to find Wavy Baby is NOT a collab and not a licensed product either. If I owned a really big company like Vans, I would sue MSCHF or at least find peaceful resolution with benefits for both sides, despite the fact that I like what MSCHF does and support art in the war between art and corporates.

As a piece of art I don’t see a problem with the wavy baby but as a shoe I do think it’s an issue.

I’m with vans on this, you can’t argue the fact they look similar but curvy. Only when people who are in the creating industry will say it doesn’t look the same because they need stuff like this so their own items which they create don’t get sued.

If it were one art piece I think they would be easily in the clear, but when you sell that many pairs at such a high markup it's very clearly no longer "just an art project" in my eyes.

If supposedly Van lose the case, that's a Green light for every person to start a company selling Wavy/weird version of Iconic silhouettes in the footwear history And they will make bank not because they are creative but because of the brand/model recognition of those shoes

The recent Supreme Court case Jack Daniel's v. VIP Products does not help this shoe's chances. The court found 9-0 that a product that was a parody of Jack Daniel's was trademark infringement, because the design was being used to make a commercial product identifiable to consumers. Seems very similar to this case.

I really enjoyed your video. As an IP and trademark law attorney, I wanted to make one point though. To keep trademark protection on a design or a logo or trade dress active, you have to police your own rights. So Vans, while arguably overly assertive in its prosecution of its rights here, technically had to go after the Wavy Baby or risk losing/diminishing their trademark protection. I think you’re totally right though, this shoe is clearly not meant to be a functional skate shoe and is not really threatening Vans’ market share in any meaningful way. Again, great vid and I will never tire of seeing all these shoes and boots cut in half!

I don’t know the details of the case. It would have made sense to approach Vans when it was in planning phase to get their permission. Detail the price of the shoe, art concept, limited number made, agree to give them a small percentage, etc. and move on with it or don’t. I am not surprised that they sued, even if I don’t agree.

Am I the only one that got really happy when he broke the 4 wall and literally raised the curtain

I thought these were made by vans. I could see them competing with vans platform shoes, with the price difference attributed to being limited. Glad to see these on the channel though.

It is so painful to watch Weston compare the wrong shoe, but to see the correct shoe AND wrong shoe on the screen back and forth the whole time.

The issue isn't that consumers would buy the wrong product by mistake, it's that they could be misled into believing VANS has authorized or endorsed the parody or work of art. Being "art" is literally the problem, not the defense.

Your review in this video just gave the point to Vans . Not Migschifs

I don't agree with the ruling, but I get it. If you let one brand do an homage, you open the door for everyone do one. Would have been cooler if both companies talked it out and came to some sort of collaborative solution rather than MSCHF ignoring Van's request and Vans resorting to litigation.

i am not a sneaker head and i can definetly say this ones look exactly like vans . you work and art so u can definetly see the difference but when i first saw this shoes i thought this was a vans pair

The editor deserves a raise and a nice vacation

I agree 100% with Vans. Of course, they're constructed differently. They have to be. Everything about these is based off the Vans...clearly a stolen identity.

Great video R.A 🙏🏽✨

Vans was clearly wronged here. I originally thought that the wavy baby was a collaboration with vans and mschf. Even whenever sampling is done in music, those artists are credited on the album and get some royalties.

"We stole someone else's design, made it worse in every measurable way, and charge three times as much for it. We call it art."

Revealing how much you really know with the comments on the lawsuit

The adjustable belt loop you make is insane. I really might have to check that out. That’s one of the coolest innovations I’ve ever seen

Maybe if MSCHF would actually work with the brands when they created the shoes. They may find the brands are willing to work with them. It could be mutually beneficial.

Vans wasn’t arguing that their shoes were being counterfeited. They were arguing their trademarks, etc. we’re being infringed upon. Defending trademark is standard, recommended practice. If you don’t, you can end up losing them. Cut some small, art brand some slack? Maybe, but there’s risk. As you point out, Vans shoes aren’t much different from other shoes - so what makes them special? Whatever that is, it’s what they’re trying to protect. There’s a very similar situation with guitars - check out all the Gibson guitar lawsuits and counter suits.

Really appreciate your reviews and insight on these products. Thank you for the time, work, and dedication on these projects. Please consider a future review on the Danner quarry boots and the Russel Moccasin boots.

“Judge Kuntz” what a name lol

I worked at Vans when these came out, people came in daily and asked if we had them in stock 😭

I wear mine :) the front "shank" broke on mine as well, thats why they feel so soft now. Thanks for the Video :)

Thank you for the Phoenix Wright cameo, gotta love our Ace Attorney!

That screen transistion was great. I saw momo in the corner!

Rose Anvil, can you do cutting of a X-Men Asics sneaker or the Homer Simpsons Stan Smith? BTW, I think Vans is right to sue, it's not the first time that MSCHF has tried to infringe on other peoples IP like their Little Nas Air Max 97

Love the videos 😍

As a sneakerhead, I thank the RU-vid algorithm for this channel. subbed, love the videos and I can't wait to binge-watch them. I especially love the hat hehe. I was wondering if you could do a video on the Ultra 4D shoes from Adidas. Curious what do you think about the tech they use.

I’m such a leather geek don’t know much but I just love love a good quality leather wallet or belt might have to pick me up one!

Definitely Vans was on the right, two warnings and they still went ahead and pushed the shoes out it clearly means they wanted all that smoke why didn’t they reach out for a collab? because they wanted all the money for themselves so of course they got sued it wasn’t for the “art” they were blatantly piggybacking on Vans from the shoe to the marketing

Legit always wanted to see those shoes on this channel

Sometimes I cringe when the lace cuts the shoe in half. Today I appreciated it.

will you be taking a look at the gobstopper shoes when it comes to quality, I really want a pair but wanna know you opinion on them

I don’t really see these as a commentary, and mschf is 100% using the marketing and history of vans to make a profit. But the shoes were limited and marketed outside of the price range of typical vans costumers, so even people buying vans for fashion weren’t choosing these over vans. I don’t think vans could claim damages. Though looking from the outside in, I could see a costumer getting confused thinking MSCHF got permission from vans to make this art piece, since the visual similarities are that obvious. It feels very much like corporate demanded art, looking at it.

Shoes I would like to see compared on this channel: - Jordan 4 SBs vs regular Jordan 4s - Certified Lover Boy AF1s vs regular all white AF1s - Travis Scott Olive AJ1 vs Travis Scott Reverse Mocha Low 1s (The Olives were made for women, so I'm wondering if they cheaped out on the materials even more because it sure seems like it) - OG Jordans (from the 80s-90s) vs their retros - A Ma Maniere Jordans vs their regular ones (I especially want to see the AMM 4s, since I have them) - Tiffany AF1s vs regular AF1s - OG Yeezy 350s Turtle Doves vs 2022 release - Nike "By You" Dunks vs regular Dunks (a lot of people are making them & claiming the leather is better just because it's tumbled lol) - Taft Boots vs other boots - New Republic Chelsea boots vs other chelsea boots Love seeing you debunk us Sneakerheads thinking a shoe is better quality than it really is. Lol

I mean it does look cool and it was only one small batch that never was going to seriously compete with vans, however i really think this was about what allowing this could mean in the future. If these kinds of products are allowed legally, that just means companies are going to more boldly copy the designs of other popular sneakers, which would be a terrible legal precedent for the entire industry, with way more cheap copies on the market

The "problem" ist that even though Vans might even like the shoes, they had to go after MSCHF. If you have a trademark, you have to protect it. Otherwise you create a precedent where other companies can later say "See, you didn't do anything there, why are you suing us now"

Any idea how many boots(and other footwear) have you cut with that bandsaw? Or how many with that specific blade? Looks like it didn’t want to cut..

Thanks for another great video! By the way, have you heard of Westley Richards safari boots and shoes? I'd be interested to see if the price reflects the quality of them! Hope you can get your hands on a pair :)

would be really interesting so see you review other clothing items, such as jackets. winter is coming up, everyone wants designer, im just tryna get something good quality - because of your videos :D

If you want to make a piece of art as a commentary on consumerism you should start by not selling it for 220 bucks a pop number one. Number two every aspect of the design screams “I'm lazy”. It's on the same level as Supreme. And no attempt was made to distinguish it from Vans in any way. Had I come across these without seeing a video like this I would have assumed they were Vans.

I'd love to see some content for us Canadians. For example. There is a brand called Roots that makes leather "Tuff" boots. Some are made in Canada and are supposed to be "higher quality". I'd love to see your take on them.

Can you please do a vid on the og Jordan 1s the 85s and 95s

You should do a video where you compare shoes in kids sizing vs adult sizing to see if they change technology. As well as gs and ps sizing. Love the content!

I actually really dug these as a vans old skool fan. I’d probably just have them up as a display type piece and not wear them though lol

i’d still love to see a Rick Owens Geobasket cut in half

Crown the empire hat! I knew you had good taste in music! 😏🤘

You need to do a video with the Vans New Skool

Vans have a good solid argument here. But mschf wavy have an ingenious marketing ability. Choose your fighter. Lets GO!!!

I'm hoping for a long mullet next year

Vans gave MSCHF free advertising. This has been the whole business model of MSCHF, to push copyright and trademark. Many times they get this free advertising, sell out within minutes. Its a great marketing game they play.

These are so cool, would look great as a showpiece in a display case too. How do I find a pair to buy? I dont see them anywhere.

The thing with these design infringement lawsuits is that often times the fear is that the brand might loose their base for further claims of design copying if they do not sue, kind of to maintain the strengths of the brand before court. That being said I am surprised this shoe is not a collab

If the MSCHF shoes were a one-of-a-kind piece I would absolutely agree that it's art and fair use and be right behind them, but they produced and sold thousands of pairs, clearly piggy-backing on the fact that they look like Vans to sell them. If they'd designed this shoe to look nothing like Vans but still wavy I think they'd still have been able to sell them to collectors due to the strange shape.

What MSCHF does as an artistic expression is interesting and fulfilled it's purpose. They can say what they want, and will, but they used/stole Vans's IP and have stated that they're basically fishing for litigation to push the brand. Maybe stick to boots and avoid sneaker history and legal arguments that just end up with a slanted commentary that is a bit uninformed.

Nice Crown the Empire Hat

Makia boots might be interesting to see.

the shoe is quite obviously inspired by the vans old skool, not the vans skate low. edit: you literally have pictures of them in the video WITH THEIR NAME ATTACHED 😭😭😭😭😭😭😭 edit 2: now youre saying the shoe is clearly different from the "actual one" which isnt the actual one 😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭

You should cut open some on clouds! They’re stupid comfy but who knows why?

Can y'all do a video on nicks cowboy boots? I would love to see how they compared to chisos

"We don't have a word for art. We just do everything as well as we can", attributed to the indigenous people of Bali. I look around me, and see my pair of JK Boots O.Ts, which to me, are wearable art, but which will protect and support my feet for 8 hours, & longer. Our coffee machine was designed in the 1950s, works as well as it did when I bought it 20 years ago, and one is on display at MOMA. I don't need sweatshopped, disposable 'art' in my life. These are junk, of the worst & most cynical kind. I'm with Vans.

Copyright law should allow for Parodies if I’m not mistaken.

Can you please cut the new balance classic 574 in a half?😇 this would be so interesting for me

They didn't even try to hide it, same damn shoe, just wavy

Tons of people don't wear Vans for skating, it can be easily mistaken as an official collaboration, potentially all 4000 could've gone to people that thought they were supporting Vans

the cease and desist/suit was totally justified

If you could find a pair of those newport methol jodans to cut apart that would be rad... that the earliest example of "artistic" hype shoes i can think of

I think it's obvious that the wavy baby's look exactly like a vans old skool, just distorted and made wavy. That's not say that mschf shouldn't have made these shoes because they are cool, but it is clear that they didn't do much to change the look of the old skool's

Sneakers as speech, as art.

I would love to see you cut open the converse pro suede. They have a label on the tongue that claim they’re specifically made for performance. I would love to see just how accurate or not accurately that statement is

I'm surprised MSCHF didn't use the Parody Clause.. Which states "parody is protected by the First Amendment as a form of expression"

To be honest I have to side with Vans in this case. The shoes look like warped Vans and if Vans allows this they don't defend their design/trademark, which can lead to a loss of exclusivity to said trademark/design. MSCHF should have worked out a license agreement. A big problem is also that they are selling it as a product. And their defense is very weak. There is no "sampling" when it comes to trademarks. Also they ignored a court order! As much as I'd prefer it to side with smaller companies, MSCHF brought this on themselves.

Not really related to this video, but would be interested to see you cut apart the Altama Maritime Assault. Sort of a purpose-built Chuck Taylor

Is there a channel like this only instead of review shoe quality, they review clothes quality. I would love to see that, we need that clothes are so over priced and the quality is getting worse.

American law is often insane. Copyright and trademark laws are not ok, they are not helping, they seem to be there to promote corporate meddling, not to protect authors. These shoes can not be mistaken for Vans, their design is original. "50 shades of Gray" was inspired by Twilight, but it's an original work nevertheless. I honestly think that it's important that an item is not mistaken for other brand product, distinctly marked. Otherwise it could be almost a copy, I don't think anyone should be able to sue.

Braille House Skateboarding made a whole video Skateboarding in the Wavy Baby's.

Looks like a Vril proscubus worm logo. Nice

Until this video, I thought Vans made those Wavy shoes, not MSCHF. So that is part of taking someone to court, that they mistake something for a known brand to could create a negative branding

I hope MSCHF appeal as it looks like US copyright law lacks clarity and is being applied inconsistently. Andy Warhol wasn't sued by the estates of Elvis Presley or Marilyn Monroe for his screenprints based on their images but he was successfully sued by the photographer who took the photo his Prince screenprint was based on. Similarly, Marvin Gaye's estate successfully sued Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams for copyright infringement over Blurred Lines but they failed in their suit against Ed Sheeran's Thinking Out Loud so I'm not sure anyone could say with any confidence what the law does or does not allow.