Reebok vs. Eastpark: The Full Story of the Design Infringement Lawsuit Between Sports Brands
“Inspiration or blatant replication?” The design infringement controversy between Reebok and Eastpark reignited awareness of copyright sensitivity in the sportswear industry.
.jpg "Reebok vs. Eastpark: The Full Story of the Design Infringement Lawsuit Between Sports Brands")
Hello! Today, we’ll be looking into the design infringement lawsuit filed by global sports brand Reebok against the emerging streetwear brand Eastpark. Centered around the sensitive issue of “creativity and originality in design,” this case evolved into a broader debate on balancing rights between major brands and smaller designers. Let’s break down the details, legal issues, and industry impact at a glance.
Table of Contents
Origin of Design and Similarity Controversy
The case began when Reebok's “ARC Series” sneakers released in the second half of 2024 were alleged to have copied the design and pattern almost exactly from Eastpark’s limited-edition “Eastpark Echo Runner,” launched two years earlier. The two products are visually very similar in the side arch line, ankle cut angle, and color combinations, with even the fabric texture reportedly being nearly identical.
International design communities and fashion media also pointed out the similarities in Reebok’s product, with some stating it was “almost a copy rather than inspired by”. On social media, the hashtag “#ReebokCopycat” trended, further fueling the issue.
Reebok’s Lawsuit and Claims
Ironically, the case began with Reebok filing the lawsuit. Reebok claimed that Eastpark had “deliberately damaged the Reebok brand image and misled consumers with false accusations,” and filed for defamation and unfair competition seeking damages.
| Reebok's Claim | Summary |
|---|---|
| Brand Damage | Eastpark spread false information via SNS and media |
| Unfair Competition | Used controversy to drive up its own sales |
| Damages Claimed | Claimed $10 million for financial and reputational loss |
Eastpark's Response and Industry Reaction
In an official statement, Eastpark said, “This design was already registered and presented at an international design fair in 2022, and we have all the design sketches and mockup images as evidence.” They also accused Reebok of a “counterattack to hide its own copying” and announced a countersuit.
- Fashion designer associations issued solidarity statements supporting Eastpark
- Legal experts focused on identifying the original creator of the design
- Many in the fashion industry said the resemblance was beyond inspiration—more like direct copying
※ Eastpark announced they would countersue Reebok for “design copyright infringement.”
Court's Judgment and Key Issues
The lawsuit proceeded in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, with the main issues focused on ownership of design copyright and substantial similarity. Reebok denied the similarities, but the court acknowledged that Eastpark had released the design first and that the specific elements were clearly similar, leaning in favor of Eastpark in a preliminary ruling.
| Issue | Court's Judgment |
|---|---|
| Design Disclosure Timing | Acknowledged Eastpark's public release in 2022 |
| Substantial Similarity | Color scheme and cut lines were found clearly similar |
| Defamation Ruling | Deemed to fall within the scope of fair public criticism |
Design Copyright and Lessons for the Sports Fashion Industry
This case served as a reminder for the sportswear industry about the importance and legal effectiveness of design copyright registration. Especially in a field where trends change rapidly, the ability to prove who came up with the idea first was the key to the ruling.
| Impact Factor | Application Example |
|---|---|
| Design Registration | Eastpark’s pre-registered blueprints used as evidence |
| Product Release Timing | Reebok’s product release timing was unfavorable |
| SNS Evidence | Past posts on Eastpark’s official account were used as proof |
Where's the Line Between Inspiration and Imitation?
This case reignited a fundamental question in the design industry: “Where is the line between inspiration and plagiarism?” The court ruled that “Even for products with the same function, if the method of expression is substantially similar, it constitutes infringement.”
- Details that go beyond inspiration can be considered infringement
- Trends of the time are not a sufficient defense on their own
- Documentation such as concept briefs and prototype photos is critical
- Commercial reproduction beyond fair use carries legal responsibility
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
After Eastpark publicly accused Reebok of design plagiarism online, Reebok filed a preemptive lawsuit claiming defamation and unfair competition. It was a form of counterattack.
Non-functional, visual elements (color, lines, patterns, etc.) must be substantially similar, and the design must be original. Whether the design was disclosed first is also crucial.
They showcased the design at an international trade fair in 2022 and retained official sketches and social media records, which were used as key evidence during the trial.
While copyright registration is not mandatory, registering design rights or industrial design rights can enhance legal protection. Preserving disclosure records is also a critical strategy.
Yes. Purely functional structures or shapes are not subject to copyright protection. However, decorative or aesthetic elements are protected.
It reinforced the notion that even large corporations are not exempt from copyright infringement claims and encouraged smaller brands to strengthen legal protections through design registration and documentation.
Conclusion: Design Rights Are Not Defined by Brand Size
The design plagiarism dispute between Reebok and Eastpark went beyond mere imitation and raised profound questions about the protection of creative works and industry ethics. This case offered hope that if a designer can document and prove their ideas in advance, even the largest corporations can be held accountable. The fashion industry must draw a clearer line between "inspiration" and "infringement," and every creative work deserves to be respected.
.jpg)
.jpg)
