Margiela wins rival invalidations over Japanese-inspired split-toe design

Margiela wins rival invalidations over Japanese-inspired split-toe design

/in /by

This article was originally published in World Trademark Review (WTR) on February 26, 2026, and includes contributions from our partner Anne Desmousseaux.

  • Maison Margiela successfully invalidates seven rival EU designs for split-toe shoes on lack of distinctiveness
  • Margiela’s reinterpretation of traditional Japanese footwear deemed sufficient prior art to block later designs
  • New EU designs based on traditional cultural forms may be at higher risk of invalidity and opposition proceedings, expert warns

French luxury fashion label Maison Margiela has successfully invalidated seven EU designs filed by Singaporean company Cybrog, arguing that the designs lack distinctive character compared to its existing split-toe Tabi shoe range.

Margiela argued that Cybrog’s designs lacked novelty and individual character in view of the design of its own well-known shoes, available on the market before the filing date of the contested designs.

The Invalidity Division found that Margiela’s ‘Tabi shoes and half-boots’ and ‘Stivaletti Tabi’ had been disclosed on various occasions before the filing of Cybrog’s designs.

The Invalidity Division found “only minor differences” between the two companies’ designs, paying particular attention to the split-toe element, which it said would be one of the “most noticeable” features to informed consumers.

Traditional cultural forms are not enough alone to invalidate EU designs

While the style of Margiela’s Tabi shoes may be relatively unique to Western consumers, the origins of the designs can be traced back to traditional footwear that is still worn in Japan today.

Margiela’s Tabi takes inspiration and pays homage to jika-tabi, a traditional form of Japanese footwear originating from the Nara period of the Eighth Century.

Margiela acknowledges its inspiration for Tabi shoes on its site, naming its collection a “heritage classic”.

While Margiela credits its inspiration to jika-tabi, other brands registering designs founded on cultural forms may open themselves up to legal risk, warns Alatis founding partner Anne Desmousseaux.

The case indicates that new EU designs with elements from traditional and cultural forms may be used to invalidate future designs that share the same inspiration.

“The Tabi cases illustrate that even when the cultural source is long known, an earlier fashion adaptation (here, Margiela’s reinterpretation) can pre-empt others from claiming rights in similar reinterpretations,” Desmousseaux says.

“The Invalidity Division compared the prior and contested designs and concluded that Margiela’s ‘Tabi’ shoes and half-boots were an obstacle to the individual character of the contested designs,” she notes.

“Most often recognisable or historical forms are somewhat modernised and reused (eg, Greco-Roman draping, African beadwork, or Indigenous patterns), then they are used as ‘prior art’ preventing the newer design from being considered sufficiently novel or distinctive, preventing at the end a private appropriation,” she says.

While designs based on traditional cultural forms are registerable at the EUIPO, Desmousseaux advises that the design itself must be distinctive enough to avoid invalidity or opposition proceedings from other brands taking similar inspiration.

“There is no examination of novelty or individual character by the EUIPO of a design application. Accordingly, a design application based on traditional forms will be granted registration,” she says. “However, when a declaration of invalidity is filed by a third party, serious consideration will be given [to the design] by the EUIPO.”

EU designs that take inspiration from traditional or cultural forms may therefore be at greater risk of invalidity, Desmousseaux warns.

“The EUIPO tends to assess visual similarity and public availability but doesn’t refer to the cultural context of the design,” she says. “As shown in these Tabi decisions, the EUIPO usually doesn’t refer to ‘cultural appropriation.’”

Culturally inspired designs may carry reputational risks for brands

Fashion brands taking inspiration from traditional cultural forms may also face reputational challenges, advises Desmousseaux.

“Beyond legal invalidation, there’s increasing public and institutional scrutiny around cultural appropriation in design. Brands risk consumer backlash or being seen as exploiting cultural heritage without proper credit or collaboration,” she warns.

In June 2025, Italian fashion brand Prada released a statement regarding the origins of its open-toe braided sandals, inspired by traditional Indian Kolhapuri sandals, after an online backlash to the shoes.

Speaking to the BBC, a Prada spokesperson said that the brand has “always celebrated craftsmanship, heritage and design traditions”. They added that Prada had been in contact with the Maharashtra Chamber of Commerce, Industry & Agriculture, an industry trade body in the state where the original sandals are produced.

Designers and brand owners should appropriately credit their inspiration, Desmousseaux advises.

The EUIPO’s approach to design infringement focuses primarily on visual similarity and public availability, rather than the cultural context from which a design originates.

However, “the issue of cultural and heritage forms is under discussion with UNESCO and WIPO to better protect Traditional Cultural Expressions”, Desmousseaux notes. “National IP authorities (eg, in Mexico and Kenya) are also slowly incorporating such considerations into IP and heritage laws.”

Meanwhile, the Margiela case shows how the registration of culturally inspired works, once adapted and widely recognised in the market, can effectively pre-empt others from claiming rights over similar reinterpretations, placing brands in a precarious position when drawing from long-standing cultural traditions.