Editing Converse (brand) (section)

== Legal issues ==
Starting in July 2008, Converse sent around 180 cease-and-desist letters to over 30 companies that they claimed were violating the [[Chuck Taylor All-Stars]] trademark and selling so-called look-alike sneakers. In October 2014, Converse filed a lawsuit against 30 companies for allegedly infringing on its generic sneaker style's bumper toe, striped midsole, and toe cap. The brand argued that companies were violating an alleged common-law trademark by importing sneakers with similar elements. Several companies settled with Converse and they were dropped from the list.<ref>Schiavenza, Matt, "Why Converse is Fighting to Keep All Stars Cool," The Atlantic, October 15, 2014.</ref><ref>Butler-Young, Sheena, "Iconix and Fila Settle in Converse Lawsuit Saga," Footwear News, April 9, 2015.</ref>

In November 2015, Charles Bullock, chief administrative judge at the [[International Trade Commission]], preliminarily ruled that several brands Converse filed against were violating Converse's outsole design trademarks, i.e. the pattern on the bottom of the sole of the shoe. The soles of the shoes are designed to allow players to jump or move in all directions. The diamond pattern makes this possible.<ref name="Mr. Porter" /> Judge Bullock further ruled that while [[Skechers]] "Twinkle Toes" brands did share similarities to Converse, "Twinkle Toes" were different enough and marketed in a way for it not to be mistaken for Chuck Taylor All-Stars.<ref>{{Cite web|title = Converse Trademark Lawsuit: Skechers Declares Victory, Mixed Ruling Expected Overall|url = http://footwearnews.com/2015/business/uncategorized/converse-trademark-lawsuit-ruling-skechers-twinkle-toes-bobs-171481/|website = Footwear News|access-date = February 11, 2016 |language = en-US|first = Margaret|last = Sutherlin| date=November 19, 2015 }}</ref> Judge Bullock also ruled that most of the shoes sold by Highline United under the Ash brand did not infringe and that Converse did not have a valid common law mark for its midsole.

On June 23, 2016, the anniversary of the death of Chuck Taylor, the International Trade Commission ruled that Converse's alleged trade dress for the midsole design of a combined toe cap, toe bumper, and stripe was not entitled to trademark protection under the common law and found invalid Converse's federal trademark registration. The case was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which ruled that the ITC had used the wrong test and remanded the case. On remand, the ITC ruled that Converse's trade dress was protectable but not infringed.<ref>{{Cite web|title=In Long-Running Dispute, ITC Rules Chuck Taylor Sneakers Protectable But Not Infringed|url=https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/in-long-running-dispute-itc-rules-chuck-38274/|access-date=2021-07-07|website=JD Supra|language=en}}</ref>